Oral Answers to Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Iraq

Liz Blackman: What recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Kurdish people about the situation in northern Iraq.

Ann Winterton: What plans he has to ensure long-term stability in Iraq.

Jack Straw: I know that the whole House will join me in extending our profound condolences to the families of the servicemen who have been killed in the conflict or who are missing in action.
	Coalition forces are making steady progress towards our objectives. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelled out to the House yesterday, we are determined to pursue this campaign in a way that minimises the suffering of ordinary Iraqis and safeguards the wealth of the country for the future prosperity of all its people; and to make this an action not of conquest but of liberation.
	On the situation in the north, Ministers and officials are in regular contact with Kurdish leaders and with the Government of Turkey.
	On long-term stability, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out last week our vision for an Iraq which is stable, prosperous, at peace with itself and its neighbours and able to play a full role in the international community.

Liz Blackman: Yesterday, many Members posed questions to the Prime Minister on their concerns about Turkish incursions into northern Iraq. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will recognise that those anxieties are especially heightened by the massing of Turkish troops on the border. What efforts are being made to ensure that this potential disaster is thwarted and that the Turks, as well as the Kurds, realise that such moves would serve to benefit them neither now nor in the future?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend raises an important issue about the stability of the border area between Turkey and the Kurdistan-controlled part of Iraq and the need for restraint both by the Kurds and Kurdish leaders and the Government of the autonomous Kurdistan region of Iraq and by the Government of Turkey. As I have indicated, we have held extensive discussions not only with Kurdish leaders but also with the Government of Turkey. I spoke face to face with Foreign Minister Gul at the European Council in Brussels last Friday and we continue to urge the Turkish Government to show maximum restraint and to understand that, as my hon. Friend says, it would not serve their interests any more than the interests of those within the Kurdish area if aggressive military action were to be taken by Turkish forces.

Ann Winterton: How long does the right hon. Gentleman expect it to take for good governance to be established in Iraq post-conflict, bearing in mind that resources will be available from frozen assets and potential oil revenues to establish humanitarian and regeneration priorities? Moreover, does he agree that it would be wholly unacceptable for countries that refuse to join the coalition to free Iraq from tyranny to benefit commercially from its reconstruction?

Jack Straw: I cannot give any indication of when we anticipate that the military action will be concluded—that is the nature of warfare. On the establishment of good governance thereafter, we believe that can happen pretty rapidly. The Iraqis are a talented people; they have a basis for public administration and reasonable communications. Unlike Kosovo or Afghanistan, Iraq is a rich country and billions of dollars are lying idle in escrow funds in New York—United Nations funds—because the Iraqi Government have failed to unlock them. I am optimistic about the establishment of good governance as soon as the conflict is over.

Ann Clwyd: Is it not the case that the Turks have also been helpful to the Kurds of northern Iraq in the past by allowing their bases to be used for the planes that police the no-fly zones, so some gratitude should be shown to the Turks at the same time as saying to them very clearly that there is no reason for them to cross the border into northern Iraq? There is no perceived threat any longer from the PKK since its leader was locked up two years ago; nor is there a necessity to provide refugee camps inside the Kurdish border of northern Iraq when there is no perceived refugee movement towards the border with Turkey.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who correctly acknowledges from her position of great authority on this subject that the Turkish Government have played a constructive role to try to calm tensions between the Turkish community on one side of the border and the Kurdish community on the other. We look to them to continue to do so. In my discussions last Friday with Foreign Minister Gul, he went out of his way to explain that the Government of Turkey had done their very best to keep contact and maintain co-operation with Kurdish leaders.
	On refugee camps, the situation on the ground has changed markedly compared with 1991, when 500,000 Kurdish refugees went across an undefended border into Turkey because at that stage that area of Iraq was under the control of Saddam. Now it is not. None the less, we acknowledge the anxieties of the Turkish Government about refugees, which is one of the many reasons why we maintain such close contact with them.

Michael Ancram: May I first associate the Opposition with the Foreign Secretary's condolences to those who have lost loved ones in action in Iraq?
	Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that post-Saddam Iraq will be run by a genuinely representative Administration, who will preserve and foster new democratic systems such as that in northern Iraq, will avoid creating permanent and subjugated minorities and will not been seen merely as a surrogate for rule by America, Britain or both? How confident is he that the United Nations will become involved in the reconstruction of Iraq and the stability of its Administration? The liberation of Iraq is being won by America, Britain and the rest of the coalition, despite the French and the European Union. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that any UN participation in reconstruction will actually reflect that fact?

Jack Straw: I am confident that the Iraqis will be able to establish good, representative governance. That confidence is based on the innate talents of the Iraqi people, but specifically on the agreement that was reached in the Azores between Prime Minister Aznar, President Bush and the Prime Minister, who agreed—this was reflected in the motion passed by the House a week ago—that we would seek the adoption of a new UN Security Council resolution that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian aid and reflect and endorse an appropriate post-conflict Administration for Iraq. There are differences in the EU about the conflict, as is well known, but I am glad to say that a constructive approach to the provision of aid and humanitarian relief was shown by our EU colleagues at the European Council meeting last Thursday and Friday.

Michael Ancram: What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made about the effects of the war on the wider region? What information has he received about the possibility of disruptive intervention in Iraq by Iranian militia, and what plans are there to forestall that? What hope is there that Turkey as a friend and colleague in NATO will work, if not under the coalition, at least with the coalition in any use of its armed forces in or around northern Iraq? What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to persuade Iraq's Arab neighbours that a benign and prosperous Iraq, instead of pumping poison into the surrounding region, could help to spread prosperity and peace throughout the Arab world?

Jack Straw: To take the last point first, it is well known that, in public, Arab leaders—for example, at the meeting of the Arab League in Cairo yesterday—with the single exception of Kuwait have taken a public position of criticising coalition action. However, that public position disguises a very wide range of private opinions held by those leaders and, indeed, by those on the street as well. I think that once the coalition action has been successful, we will see a very significant shift, both by the leaders and by those on the street.
	On the reports about Iranian militia incursions into Iraq, we have no basis of evidence at all to substantiate what we regard as poor reports in the media. I have seen no evidence about that whatsoever. Moreover, we have good relations with the Government of Iran, and only last Thursday I was in touch with the Foreign Minister, Kamal Kharrazi, talking about this and other matters.
	On Turkey—well, Turkey is an important NATO ally, and it has faced its own difficulties about the extent of military co-operation, which we understand. At the same time, its Parliament has agreed to overflight facilities for US and UK forces.

George Galloway: The Arab leaders will have heard the British Foreign Secretary just publicly brand them as liars, but on that subject, the British military spokesman said to the BBC yesterday, "We expected a lot of hands up, but it hasn't quite worked out that way." Is not the Government's problem that the weapons of forgery, plagiarism, fabrication and lies that they have fed the people of this country and the world have become boomerangs, which are now cutting, alas, not the bodies of the donkeys who sent our people into battle, but the lions who are having to stand and fight in defence of the British Government's lies, forgery and deception?

Jack Straw: I would find my hon. Friend's extravagant rhetoric more convincing if only I did not recall that he used exactly the same rhetoric in respect of the military action in Afghanistan, and predicted that there would be a world war that went on for at least a year or two years—

George Galloway: You said it would be over.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

George Galloway: A year ago, you said it would be over.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman put the question. I cannot help the reply that he gets. He cannot complain about the reply.

Hugo Swire: Over past years, Iran has been host to 3 million Afghan refugees and about 500,000 Iraqi refugees. One can therefore understand its reluctance to have an open border towards any refugees resulting from the current situation. Would the Secretary of State not agree that any post-Saddam Iraq, in terms of humanitarian aid, must take into account the situation with Iran? What discussions has he had with the Iranian Government and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees about the possibility of the establishment of up to 10 camps run by the Iranians within Iraq?

Jack Straw: I have had no specific discussions with the Iranian Government about the establishment of such camps. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I have made a great deal of effort in the past two years to improve relations with the Government of Iran. Indeed, I have visited Tehran on three occasions in the past 20 months, and I look forward to further visits. The Iranians, of course, know more about the terror and evil of the Saddam regime than almost any other peoples in the world, because they lost so many innocent people, not only through conventional warfare but through chemical warfare, during the Iran-Iraq war, and they have suffered from instability on both sides of their border. The issue is therefore the subject of continual discussion between me and my colleague and friend Kamal Kharrazi, the Iranian Foreign Minister, and, day by day, between our ambassador and his staff and the Iranian Foreign Ministry and other ministries in Tehran.

Doug Henderson: I have said to my right hon. Friend previously that one of the principal reasons why I am against the invasion of Iraq is that the down side will inevitably be greater than any benefit. In relation to the question that he was asked about northern Iraq, we all know now that Turkish forces have crossed the border, although probably 2,000 to 3,000 Turkish troops have been there for a number of years. The real crunch will come when Turkish forces inevitably get involved in a military combat with the Kurdish forces. In the representations that my right hon. Friend has made to the Turkish Government, has he indicated whether Britain and America would be prepared to take military action on behalf of the Kurds against the Turkish invading forces in the north?

Jack Straw: I understand that my hon. Friend has a different point of view from ours, and this is an issue of trying to balance the advantages and disadvantages of military action. I do not, however, share his view that Turkish forces will "inevitably" get involved in military action against the Kurds. That is a distant possibility, and we are using every endeavour, in co-operation with the Government of Turkey and Kurdish leaders, to ensure that that does not happen. I would only say that the experience of northern Iraq gives me very great optimism about the future of Iraq without Saddam Hussein. Despite all the opposition to the no-fly zones and that action, it is incontrovertible that the introduction of the no-fly zones enabled there to be a Kurdish autonomous region. On every single indicator, in terms of child health, schooling, nutrition and freedom, that Kurdish autonomous zone, freed from the terror of Saddam Hussein, has been infinitely better than that part of Iraq that remains under the cosh of Saddam Hussein.

Middle East

Simon Thomas: What recent discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of Israel regarding the proposed road map to peace.

Simon Hughes: What initiatives he is undertaking to bring into existence a fully internationally recognised state of Palestine.

Nick Gibb: If he will make a statement on his middle east policy.

Claire Ward: If he will make a statement on the Government's current activities in seeking a middle east peace settlement.

Julian Brazier: What steps the Government is taking to promote the establishment of a Palestinian state and the withdrawal of illegal settlements.

Jack Straw: I discussed the road map with my Israeli counterpart, the new Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, on 21 March. The United Kingdom Government are committed to the establishment of a viable state of Palestine living in peace alongside a secure state of Israel, as provided in Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 1397. This is achievable through full implementation of the Quartet road map, which was published, after the approval of Abu Mazen's Government, by the Palestinian Legislative Council.
	In recent months, we have worked with the Palestinians on their reform effort, notably through meetings in London on 14 January and between 18 and 20 February. We have encouraged President Arafat to appoint a Prime Minister. We are grateful that he has and, by doing so, he has helped to clear the way for road map publication.
	The first phase of the road map includes a requirement on Israel to take specific steps to halt settlement activity, which is illegal under international law and plainly an obstacle to peace.

Simon Thomas: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that reply. When can we except phase 1 of the road map to be implemented and, especially, when will the Israelis and Palestinians give a commitment to the two-state solution? Will he comment on, and tell us what lies behind, Prime Minister Sharon's remarks in the Knesset that the road map is a matter of "controversy"? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that peace in Israel and Palestine cannot be achieved by going down the path of bulldozing settlements and homes in acts of collective retribution and justice or down the path of suicide bombers, but that the road to peace must be a two-state solution that is agreed and signed up to in full with no amendments?

Jack Straw: The important thing is to get the road map published and for both sides to start work on its implementation with the facilitation provided by the Quartet. I cannot give specific time scales, but the hon. Gentleman knows that the aim of the road map is to move away from present divisions and conflict towards a situation in which there are two states in a relatively short time.
	A viable and separate state of Palestine is controversial in sections of Israeli politics but also in parts of the Arab world. Some people in the Arab and Islamic world take the view that there should be a one-state solution. However, a two-state solution has been agreed, it is part of international law under resolution 1397 and it is our duty to ensure that it is implemented.
	I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about suicide bombers and the bulldozing of people's homes in the settlements. We must end the spiral of violence and destruction. The only way the 6 million people in Israel and the 3.5 million people in the occupied territories can live together is by living in peace, which is the aim of the road map.

Nick Gibb: What commitments has the Foreign Secretary received from Abu Mazen that he will end Palestinian terrorist activity?

Jack Straw: I have not spoken to Abu Mazen since his appointment, although I spoke to him before that. We regard him as a fine politician and statesman who is fully capable of leading the Palestinians. He is committed, as is the rest of the Palestinian Authority, to a peaceful path. The Palestinian Authority will be required to take firm security action against the terrorist organisations, but some of the Arab states that neighbour Israel and the occupied territories have an even greater responsibility to end the funding and support of terrorist organisations. Of course, one of those countries is Iraq.

Simon Hughes: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that providing for a secure Palestine with recognised and secure boundaries, in addition to a secure Israel, is the greatest contribution that could be made to peace in Europe and Asia, as well as in the middle east? If so, will he explain why phase 1 of the so-called road map appears to require a withdrawal by the Israelis to the position as of September 2000? Will he confirm that Government policy is still for all occupied territories to be returned to the Palestinian Authority and that Israel should have returned to its 1967 boundaries by the end of the three phases?

Jack Straw: If we are to get from where we are to where we want to be, there has to be a phasing of it. The first stage needs to be a withdrawal by the Israeli defence force and other security forces from area A, which represents the occupied territories previously and effectively controlled by the Palestinian Authority. Our policy remains that very clearly laid down in resolutions 242, 338 and 1397: a return to the 1967 borders—there may be some amendments to those, but a state based on the 1967 borders—an end to the settlements, a solution to the refugee problem and a capital for a Palestinian state in Jerusalem.

Claire Ward: There remains some scepticism in the Muslim community in my constituency over whether the United States Administration are genuinely committed to the peace plan and that the plan is required to be backed up by the United States using its influence over the Israeli Government to prevent the incursions that are taking place in Palestinian areas. What is required is an assurance not just from this Government but from the United States Administration that this will be a priority in foreign policy not only at the end of the Iraqi conflict but from now.

Jack Straw: I understand the scepticism, which is shared by my own constituents and not just by my own Muslim constituents. It is incumbent on the United States Government, as much as it is on the other partners, to deliver on the road map. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has played an absolutely critical role in securing the creation of a road map and its earlier publication than anticipated. The middle east peace process will be one of the major items on the agenda for discussions that my right hon. Friend and I will be having with the United States Administration later this week.

Julian Brazier: Following that answer, does the Foreign Secretary accept that at a time when many Arabs in the middle east are believing Saddam Hussein's false propaganda that this is a war against Arabs, the acid test for moderate opinion in the middle east and for the very large Arab media, whose microphones we see before Saddam Hussein every day, will be the attitude to the Palestinian question and a genuine commitment to two states secure in their borders? Will the right hon. Gentleman finally accept that it is a measure of how far we in the west—America and Britain—have failed that we now see press reports that large numbers of Palestinians are among the Fedayeen fighting our soldiers at this very moment?

Jack Straw: I have not seen those reports, but I accept entirely the burden of the hon. Gentleman's comments. Only a tiny handful of people in Iraq and in the Islamic world outside Iraq have anything good to say about the Iraqi regime and the terror committed by Saddam Hussein. At the same time, across the Arab and Islamic world there is a real palpable sense of injustice at the way in which the Palestinians have been treated. I know that all of us acknowledge and share that. That is why, if we are to ensure that there is not a terrible clash of so-called civilisations or religions, we in the west, with our power, have a profound duty to deliver justice to the Palestinians alongside security for the Israelis.

Jean Corston: Although we are all delighted that the United Kingdom Government have played such a role in the agreement that has led to the road map—I think particularly of the actions of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—does my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary accept that people cannot go on talking about this road map for much longer without seeing what it is? Will he explain either what is impeding publication or what steps it is expected will need to be taken before it can be published?

Jack Straw: I accept that there is a degree of impatience, which I have to say we share, about the publication of the road map. The approximate reason for its delay is this. It was due to be published in December, but because of the impending Israeli elections on 28 January, it was decided that its publication had to be delayed until an Israeli Government were in place. An Israeli Government are now in place, and we have almost got to the point of having a Palestinian Authority Government in place. We want to see the road map published the moment that the Palestinian Government are fully in place and have been approved by the Palestinian Legislative Council.

Ernie Ross: The whole House will note my right hon. Friend's choice of words to describe the delay in the publication of the road map. I am not sure that the whole Palestinian community would exactly go along with that choice of words, but I would like to deal with another major issue affecting the daily lives of Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza. Given that there has to be good will on both sides, can the Foreign Secretary tell us what evidence there is that the new Israeli Government are attempting to curtail the activities of their defence forces on the west bank and Gaza in their approach to the Palestinian community? The United Nations has made it clear that only 600 of the 10,000 houses that have been demolished have any connection whatsoever with any security operation, yet the Israeli defence force continues to demolish houses. What chance does the Palestinian community have if the Israelis are simply going to humiliate them daily?

Jack Straw: Let me make it clear to my hon. Friend that the publication date of the road map is a matter to be decided by the partners in the Quartet, and is not the responsibility of either the Government of Israel or the Palestinian Authority. It is, as it were, our decision, not theirs. On my hon. Friend's second point, we continue to call for the Israeli defence force to show proper restraint. In all my conversations with Israeli Foreign Ministers—with B. B. Netanyahu and now with Mr. Shalom—I have emphasised not only that that is required under international law and simple human care, but that it is not in the interests of the Government of Israel or the reputation of the Jewish people to act excessively and outside international law.

Ann Cryer: Could my right hon. Friend give a more specific assurance about the role that the American Administration will play in the implementation of the road map? I am thinking specifically about the halting of the demolition of Palestinian homes and the removal of Israeli settlements in the west bank.

Jack Straw: The US Administration are a key part of the Quartet. They are one of the four partners in the Quartet, and have signed up to the road map. It is known, of course, that Israeli politics and concern for Israeli security are a dominant theme in United States politics—that is just a fact of life. It is critical to build confidence among both the Israeli community in Israel and the Jewish community in the United States that their security is not going to be daily threatened by terrorism, particularly by suicide bombers. We have worked very hard with the Americans, the Israelis and particularly the Palestinian Authority to ensure that the maximum security action is taken against those terrorists. However, to return to the key point made by my hon. Friend, I believe that the US Administration are fully committed to the implementation of the road map, otherwise they would not have endorsed it. We shall press them, as with all the other partners in the Quartet, to press ahead with its implementation.

Michael Moore: The Liberal Democrats, too, wish to associate themselves with the earlier comments of the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary about the sad loss of members of the armed forces—our thoughts are with their families.
	The Foreign Secretary properly emphasised the importance of the road map to peace in the middle east. Once the new Palestinian Government have been formed, the next step in the draft plan requires unequivocal statements from both sides recognising each other and ending violence against each other. In light of the many recent deaths in the region, does the Foreign Secretary believe that the parties are close to being able to make such statements? Does he agree with the Israeli Prime Minister's suggestion that the road map is still negotiable? At what point will it cease to be amendable?

Jack Straw: I can certainly express hope on the hon. Gentleman's first point. It is in the interests of both sides to live in peace, so they have to recognise that the only way to peace is a two-state solution. On the issue of amendment, yes, I am aware that there are those in Israel who want amendments, and I discussed that with Foreign Minister Shalom last week in a long telephone conversation. My point to him was that the road map is the property of the Quartet, not the Israeli Government or the Palestinian Authority. It is a framework: yes, some of its detail may of course be changed over time, but what we cannot see is any change to its fundamental principles.

Julia Drown: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has referred to the scepticism of our constituents, both Muslims and others, over the middle east peace process, and particularly America's involvement in it, and by connection, its involvement in Iraq. Is my right hon. Friend able to tell the House what are the key ingredients of the road map that will give our constituents some confidence that it might succeed where so many other peace initiatives have failed?

Jack Straw: Copies of the informal text of the road map, which has not yet been published, are available in the Library. There is no magic ingredient in the road map; it reflects a series of previous peace plans. What is required—I suppose that this is the difference—is a stronger international commitment to its implementation, and perhaps more robust international architecture, and a weariness on the part of the Palestinians, the Israelis and the international community with the idea that conflict provides any answer to the solution of this centuries old problem.

Michael Ancram: How far has the Foreign Secretary pressed upon the Israeli Government the importance of making urgent and even-handed progress towards the two-state solution, which those of us who are friends of both Israel and Palestine believe is the only way forward? In that context, is it not vital that nothing further is done now before publication of the road map that could block it by pre-empting negotiations and decisions? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that not only includes continuing settlement activity—I am sure that he welcomes, as I do, the small but significant dismantling of the outposts near Hebron yesterday—but must also include the continued development of the new security fence on boundaries that presumably can never conform to those in the road map? To clarify this, should not the road map be published immediately?

Jack Straw: We continue to press the Government of Israel very hard on the principles of the road map. That comes up time and again in conversations with Israeli Ministers and representatives, but also, for example, and in a sense more powerfully, in the actions that the British Government decided to take when the Israeli Government decided to ban representatives of the Palestinian Authority from travelling to the London meeting. We decided that we would not simply accept, as it were, an attempt by the Government of Israel to cancel our meeting. Instead, we pressed ahead with it by using video links. I believe that that was an important milepost on the way to getting the road map published.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right to express anxieties about the security fence, which unlawfully takes more land from the Palestinians, and in some instances, quite gratuitously, good agricultural land. That is unacceptable and we have made that clear to the Israelis. The road map needs to be published as quickly as possible. With a decision by the partners in the Quartet, it will be published as soon as Abu Mazen's ministerial team is confirmed by the Palestinian Legislative Council.

Iraq

Louise Ellman: What assessment he has made of the links between the Iraqi regime and terrorism in the middle east.

Mike O'Brien: The Iraqi regime has supported, trained and financed the Mujaheddin-e Khalq Organisation terrorist group and encouraged terrorism in the middle east for years, including assisting the murderous Abu Nidal group, the Palestinian Liberation group and Hamas, as well as making payments to the families of suicide bombers.

Louise Ellman: Does my hon. Friend accept that Saddam Hussein's payments of about $25,000 to the families of every successful suicide bomber, in highly publicised ceremonies involving the Palestinian Authority, indicates that Saddam Hussein is part of the problem and not part of the solution? Will he be urging Abu Mazen to sever ties with similar groups sponsored by countries such as Iran and Syria, to give peace and the road map a chance?

Mike O'Brien: On my hon. Friend's final point, the new Palestinian Prime Minister designate, Abu Mazen, needs to be very clear in his condemnation of terrorism, and I believe that he will be. As for my hon. Friend's overall point, payments to suicide bombers and their families, or any encouragement for suicide bombers, is reprehensible. The Iraqi regime is clearly part of the problem. The regime has been directly responsible for helping to fuel the conflict in the middle east. The removal of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the restoration of a stable and democratic Iraq will benefit the whole region. We also need to pursue a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an equally important precondition for long-term peace in the region.

Andrew Rosindell: With potential terrorist attacks and also attacks by the Iraqi regime in the whole middle east region, will the Minister please urgently review the advice and support given to British citizens currently living in Kuwait? A constituent of mine has contacted me to say that the British embassy has failed to issue gas masks, while the French embassy has done so for its citizens. Could that matter be looked into?

Mike O'Brien: We are giving clear advice to the various British citizens who are in the middle east. In terms of the use of various suits and gas masks, our view is that the best thing for citizens in the area who are concerned is either to leave the area or take other suitable precautions to put themselves in a place of safety. At this point there have been no chemical and biological weapons attacks, and we very much hope that there will be no such attacks.

Roma People

Bob Russell: What recent representations he has made to applicant nations to the European Union about equal rights and safety for their Roma citizens.

Bill Rammell: The problems of the Roma community are regularly raised by our embassies in the countries concerned and by the European Commission in its regular progress reports. The UK's EU action plans in the relevant countries include projects in the Roma communities, as do EU pre-accession programmes. Indeed, action plans for Slovakia and Romania were personally launched by the Foreign Secretary last year.

Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that encouraging response. Does he agree that it is somewhat ironic that the Roma communities across central and eastern Europe were protected under almost 50 years of communism, but now that those countries have become democracies, those people have tended to become second-class citizens? Particularly in the Slovak and Czech Republics, there is almost an indication that the state is allowing that state of affairs to pertain. May I encourage the Minister to ensure, and ask him to give an assurance, that further representations will be made, particularly to the Slovak and Czech Republics?

Bill Rammell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and, in doing so, recognise his long-standing interest in this issue, although, his recollection of the rights of Roma citizens under the former communist regimes does not bear any scrutiny or comparison with what actually happened. We will keep pressing the issue and we fund a number of human rights projects and will continue to do so. I also believe that the process of enlargement, adherence to the Copenhagen criteria and the increased economic opportunities that come with enlargement will address the factors that currently force Roma citizens to leave their countries.

Keith Vaz: Is not the Minister right to say that the enlargement process has had a very positive effect on the member designate countries, which have a better understanding of this country's concerns about the way in which Roma citizens are treated? In his discussions with my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain), will he ensure that when the Convention on the Future of Europe is concluded, sufficient protection will be given to the rights of minority groups throughout Europe and, in particular, in the member designate countries?

Bill Rammell: I believe that the accession process has already led to a significant improvement. Indeed, last year's regular report from the Commission not only highlighted progress that has been made in candidate countries, but, genuinely and legitimately, highlighted areas for further improvement. It is that issue on which we now need to focus. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's comments about the Convention on the Future of Europe are passed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain).

United Nations

Huw Edwards: What recent discussions he has had about reform of the constitution of the United Nations.

Bill Rammell: There are ongoing discussions at the United Nations and between member states about a number of UN reform issues. Reform of the United Nations charter requires approval by two thirds of the membership of the UN. Currently, agreement on that issue does not exist. Nevertheless, the UK supports reform of the Security Council to make it more representative of the modern world. In our view, that should include enlargement of both its permanent and non-permanent membership.

Huw Edwards: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the people who feel so disappointed that UN support for the current conflict was not achieved are also perplexed about the UN's processes, especially the composition of the Security Council and the use of the veto? Will he assure us that, when the conflict is over, there will be a review of the UN so that it can be reconstituted as a more effective body for resolving conflict in the 21st century?

Bill Rammell: I share my hon. Friend's frustration at our inability to achieve consensus for a second resolution at the Security Council. We strongly believe that that would have created the best possible circumstances in which to maximise pressure on Saddam Hussein and achieve a peaceful resolution. Nevertheless, we need to examine such issues carefully. It is important to look forwards rather than backwards. We are therefore working for the strongest possible UN involvement in any post-conflict Iraq.

Crispin Blunt: The present UN constitution allows for both mandatory and non-mandatory Security Council resolutions. Do the Government accept the possibility that, at the end of the road map process, there will be a need for a mandatory Security Council resolution to impose a settlement in the middle east peace process?

Bill Rammell: It is important not to rule out that option because it may be needed, depending on the progress that is made.

Anne Campbell: My hon. Friend has just said that he seeks enlargement of the number of permanent members on the Security Council. That could lead to problems unless the veto procedure is changed at the same time. Will my hon. Friend outline any plans or proposals for changing the veto procedure if the number of permanent members on the Security Council is increased?

Bill Rammell: It is important to expand the permanent membership of the Security Council so that it properly represents the modern world. However, were that to be agreed and implemented, we have no plans to change the number of nations that currently have the veto.

Alan Duncan: If we are to be realistic about the UN's structure, it should reflect where power lies and try to combine that with a measure of consensus in its decision making. Will the Foreign Secretary and the Minister join me in strongly rejecting the view of those who have reacted with glee to the UN's problems in the past couple of months? Such gloating is thoroughly irresponsible and serves only to fragment world opinion further.
	Will the Minister confirm that, in addition to discussing UN reform, its future and authority is best assured by all of us pressing for the implementation of existing resolutions in an even-handed way, especially in Gaza and the Palestinian west bank?

Bill Rammell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the latter point. I also agree that no one should view with glee what has happened to the UN recently. The UN is not perfect: on several occasions in the past 50 years, we have failed to reach consensus on crucial issues. Nevertheless, it is the only institution within which it is possible to create consensus among peaceful nations to enhance our security. I therefore believe that we should look forwards, not backwards.

Convention on the Future of Europe

Chris Bryant: What recent discussions he has had with his French, German and Spanish counterparts on the Convention on the Future of Europe.

Denis MacShane: We submitted a joint paper with Spain on 28 February to the Convention. The Government continue to work closely with their European partners, including France, Germany and Spain, on the Convention on the Future of Europe on a wide range of issues.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend knows that, notwithstanding the debacle over the French use of the veto last week, many of us hope that there will be a significant rapprochement with France in the coming months, especially if we are to achieve outcomes in the Convention. However, will he put paid to one French idea that appears to be burbling around in the mind of the President of the Convention, namely that the preamble to the constitution should explicitly refer to Christian heritage in Europe? Surely that would be profoundly unhelpful at this time.

Denis MacShane: My hon. Friend, with his background in holy orders, is right to ask the question.
	"Let us render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
	Mr. Giscard d'Estaing has raised the possibility of a reference to religion in the preamble, but that does not reflect the French Government's view. My hon. Friend knows that their views on such matters are secular. Although we acknowledge the enormous contribution of Christian, Jewish, Moorish and Muslim heritage to our common Europe, the Government do not believe that it would be appropriate in a multi-religious, multicultural Europe to include a specific reference to one faith in the constitution of the Convention.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The Minister will know that the latest tranche of draft articles includes provision for a European public prosecutor. As the Government are apparently opposed to that, but have been very weak and timid in making their objections clear so far in the Convention, will they on this occasion make clear beyond doubt to the Convention and to other member states that we will not accept a treaty containing provision for a European public prosecutor? If the Minister is clear now, that will avoid tears later. Will he begin to stand up for British interests, and make clear that the Government have bottom lines that we will not cross?

Denis MacShane: That has been clear for a number of years—and I was not aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain) was a weak and timid person.
	I cannot speak for myself in this matter, but the Government's view is plain, and is shared by a number of other Governments. We believe that the establishment of a European public prosecutor as such is not the right way forward. We must, however, find serious mechanisms for the combating of European fraud, and for combating trans-frontier crime. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will turn his mind to that, as one of our parliamentary representatives on the Convention.

Wayne David: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is now a need for a European constitution, and also a need for a clear statement of the European Union's objectives in a form that people can understand?

Denis MacShane: My hon. Friend is right. I recommend an excellent article in The Economist entitled "The European Constitution" and penned by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Richard Spring: Given that the impetus for the Convention was, to a great extent, the enlargement process, does the Minister agree that the accession states should have not just full rights of participation at the Convention and the intergovernmental conference, but full and equal voting rights at the IGC? Would that not reassure those countries greatly, especially after the hollowness of a common European foreign policy has been made so obvious by the disgraceful and patronising attack on them by President Chirac?

Denis MacShane: As so often, the hon. Gentleman spoilt a good first point by including yesterday's insults in his closing remarks. It was clear from the treaty of Nice that the new European Union member states would play a full and a voting part in the IGC.

Alan Howarth: Does my hon. Friend feel able to say that the extent of agreement in the European Council on the appropriate role of the United Nations in post-conflict Iraq and the middle east peace process, as well as the shared commitment to Macedonia, point encouragingly to the healing of the diplomatic wounds in Europe and the possibility of creating a European common foreign and security policy? Does he agree, however, that it would not be appropriate now or in the foreseeable future for such a policy to be subject to qualified majority voting or the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, as the new EU draft constitution appears to propose?

Henry Bellingham: Come back to us!

Denis MacShane: My right hon. Friend—whose contribution from the Labour Benches we welcome—makes a good point. I cannot see how foreign policy issues can be linked with the European Court of Justice, and I think that foreign policy will remain principally intergovernmental. I think, however, that in the new European Union of 25 states those that wanted a robust line to be taken on Saddam Hussein would have enjoyed a comfortable majority.

Anglo-French Relations

Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on Anglo-French bilateral diplomatic relations.

Denis MacShane: Relations with France are close, but could be better. We continue to work with France on a range of important issues.

Michael Fabricant: Over the weekend Le Figaro reported further critical attacks on Britain by Mr. Chirac, but the Government are right to try to strengthen ties with not just the old but the new Europe. What, though, will be the cost of United Kingdom membership of the new expanded European Union of 25 states that the Minister mentioned a few moments ago? Has the Foreign Office conducted any analysis? Is he aware that the United States Government believe that, taking into account indirect costs, that cost could be as high as £30 billion a year—equivalent to about 80 new hospitals in Britain every year? Has the Foreign Office conducted such an analysis, and if not will it do so?

Denis MacShane: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister should not answer that question. I call Mr. Shaun Woodward.

Shaun Woodward: Despite the considerable differences and problems, alluded to by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), with the French concerning military intervention in Iraq, does my hon. Friend agree that in fact, there are substantial areas of agreement with the French in foreign and security policy? Nowhere is this more important than in seeking a peaceful resolution between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and in the implementation of the road map for peace.

Denis MacShane: I am glad that my hon. Friend makes that point, because on a range of key foreign policy issues such as the Balkans and the middle east, and on others concerning the idea of Europe as a partnership of nation states, we are much closer to the position of the French than some of our other European partners. If I may answer the initial question, Mr. Speaker, the Foreign Office has of course analysed the cost of enlargement of the European Union. We believe that it will add about Euro1.75 billion—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I told the Minister not to answer that question. I call the Reverend Martin Smyth.

Martin Smyth: When the Minister said that we are really close to France, I thought for a moment that he was speaking of the tunnel. On our links with the European Union and the question of the European governor of the European Central Bank, when will France come up with a viable candidate, rather than prolonging the agony that they have entered into in the past? Is the Minister satisfied that we constantly defend our rights with the same determination that the French defend theirs?

Denis MacShane: The question of the next governor of the European Central Bank will have to be resolved soon. Jean-Claude Trichet, the French candidate, certainly has the support of the City. He is a most austere and rigorous monetarist, and he is not lax on fiscal matters. He is stern on monetary matters—in fact, he is the very model of an Anglo-Saxon banker, even if he is French.

British-German Relations

Ian Lucas: What plans he has to meet representatives of the German Government to discuss British-German diplomatic relations.

Denis MacShane: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer last Friday at the European Council. I had good talks with him, and a brief conversation with the German Chancellor. This follows my extensive meetings with Government and Bundestag representatives in Berlin last Monday.

Ian Lucas: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important that at this stage we work very closely with our German friends in putting together a new UN resolution on Iraq? I hope that we will move away from the rhetoric that has characterised much of the discussion of our European partners in the past week. We must rebuild the UN consensus, and could not our relationship with Germany be at the heart of putting forward a new UN resolution on the reconstruction of Iraq?

Denis MacShane: That is very much the wish in Berlin, and I hope that some of the rhetoric directed against this Government from certain of our partners and friends in Europe also dries up, because this has not been a one-way street. However, my hon. Friend is right: we must work very closely with Germany, and we welcome co-operation on ideas about a post-Saddam Iraq. We can put behind us, or leave to historians, analysis of diplomatic wranglings at the UN, and start to build a happier future for that troubled part of the world, in collaboration with Germany and other partners.

John Wilkinson: Can the Minister make it clear to his counterpart in the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Germany that the continued presence of British troops in the federal republic will be called into question in this country unless the German Government, through diplomacy and their conduct of foreign affairs, do not give encouragement, at least, to the Queen's enemies in Iraq?

Denis MacShane: That is not worthy of the hon. Gentleman. German military facilities are at the full disposition of the coalition and Germany military units are in the Gulf to help, in case of attack with chemical and biological weapons.
	I do not greatly object to the anti-militarist feeling that animates people of all political persuasions in Germany. I would have liked to see a different diplomatic course from the German Government in the last few months, but what they did was a response to promises made at elections by all parties, and I will have no truck with any anti-German feeling or with remarks about our troops being anything other than fully welcome in the Federal Republic of Germany.

George Stevenson: In the important discussions on diplomatic relations between my hon. Friend and our German counterparts, will the emphasis be on our Atlanticism or our Europeanism?

Denis MacShane: Both.

Company Directors (Health and Safety)

Ross Cranston: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require companies to appoint a director as the health and safety director; and to impose duties on this director and on other directors of companies in relation to health and safety; and for connected purposes.
	We still have a good way to go in this country in relation to health and safety. People know about the big disasters such as the Clapham and Paddington rail accidents, but smaller-scale accidents occur continually. In 2001–02, some 225 fatal injuries to employees—42 of them in the midlands—were reported to the Health and Safety Commission. Many companies have high standards, but we need to raise everyone's standard to their level. This important social problem must be tackled along various dimensions. My Bill approaches one of them by seeking to make a step change in what directors of a company must do to ensure a safer environment for employees and members of the public affected by its activities.
	Directors are responsible for how companies operate. It is directors who set a company's policy on health and safety, and it is they who decide how high health and safety is on the agenda in comparison with other matters. It is they who determine the resources, including management resources, which a company allocates to health and safety. It is they who decide how health and safety is monitored in the company, whether accidents are properly investigated and what preventive action is taken for the future. The British Standards Institution summarises the position thus:
	"Ultimately responsibility for occupational health and safety rests with top management."
	My Bill recognises that reality and codifies within the Companies Act 1989 the responsibilities that directors already have in broad terms as a result of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and under guidance entitled "Directors' responsibilities for health and safety", which was issued by the Health and Safety Commission in 2001.
	The 1974 Act adopted the Robens philosophy that health and safety is the responsibility of top management. It imposes duties on employers, but section 37 also imposes criminal responsibility on directors when an offence under the Act has been committed—in the rather old-fashioned language used—with their consent or connivance, or if it is attributable to neglect on their part. In theory, if a death occurs, directors could also be prosecuted under the general criminal law, although in practice that is exceptional and the Law Commission has recommended, and the Government have in principle accepted, the need to introduce an offence of corporate killing.
	The Health and Safety Commission's guidance grew out of the Government's strategy—launched in their 1999 document "Revitalising Health and Safety"—of putting a new impetus into health and safety management. The guidance does not constitute legal obligations, but sets out best practice in five action points. It is aimed not only at companies but at public bodies and voluntary organisations.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister for Work told me on 13 February about research into the effectiveness of the guidance in promoting greater responsibility for health and safety. Preliminary findings were encouraging, and he will report in the summer on the success of the voluntary approach and the need for legislation.
	The first aspect of my Bill is to impose some general duties on directors regarding health and safety. Hon. Members will know that the Companies Act 1989 already imposes duties on directors in relation, for example, to financial matters. The general law also imposes additional duties on directors; for example, there is a duty not to appropriate opportunities that really belong to the company. The company law review recommended that those general law duties be given legislative form, and the Government have accepted that recommendation in their White Paper. However, neither the Companies Act nor the general law imposes any duty on directors relating to health and safety. This Bill does that.
	First, the Bill contains a very general duty for directors to act in the interests of the health and safety of a company's employees and others affected by the company's activities. Secondly, it imposes on directors duties to take effective steps to ensure that the company acts in accordance with the obligations imposed on it by, for example, the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. Effective steps will have been taken under the Bill if, for example, the directors have reasonably informed themselves of what the company's health and safety duties mean for it, and if they have taken into account what the health and safety director has said.
	No express penalties are set out in the Bill for directors in breach of those duties; as I have said, directors already face penalties under the 1974 Act for breach of health and safety duties. Rather, the duties in this Bill are owed to the company, and it is the company that enforces them. In that respect, the Bill accords with the excellent report of the Centre for Corporate Accountability on the general subject of corporate responsibility for health and safety. The whole issue of penalties underpinning the enforcement of the Companies Act 1989 was discussed by the companies law review. It may be, in the future, that those health and safety duties will need to be enforceable by the criminal law, but that is not the case under the Bill.
	The Bill applies only to company directors. If it is accepted, I would hope that the principle could be extended to apply to those at the top of public sector bodies, such as Government Departments, local government and hospital trusts.
	The second aspect of the Bill is the obligation that it imposes on public companies to appoint a health and safety director from among its directors. That is already a requirement under Health and Safety Commission guidance. According to the HSC, some leading companies have designated their chief executive as the health and safety director, sending a clear signal that the issue is serious. However, the Bill does not demand that, but leaves it to the company to choose which director should undertake the role. The Bill requires that the director chosen should be identified as such in the company's annual report.
	The Bill then imposes on the health and safety director obligations to monitor the health and safety position within the company and to report on it to the board. Basically, the detail of those obligations is taken from existing HSC guidance. I emphasise that they are limited duties and that the health and safety director cannot be scapegoated for failures by the board as a whole. In practice, of course, the health and safety director may well find it worth while to undertake training, and to arrange for training for the other directors as well.
	The monitoring and other activities of the health and safety director will gather much useful information. Already, many companies provide health and safety information to the outside world in their annual reports. Stimulated in particular by the challenge thrown down by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in the report "Revitalising Health and Safety", the HSC published guidance in 2001, entitled "Health and Safety in Annual Reports", on what in its judgment is the minimum information to be included in an annual report. Publishing health and safety information in a company's annual report demonstrates that company's commitment to the issue, and acts as a spur to further action.
	Ultimately, I hope that the directors will report on health and safety matters in the operating and financial review proposed by the company law review for companies of significant economic size. The OFR will parallel the well-developed system of financial reporting, already provided under company law, and include information on performance and other aspects that the directors judge necessary to an understanding of the business, such as environmental and social impacts. That is how, as a matter of law, directors will have to have regard to the environmental and other social impacts of their company's operations. The company law review eschewed a mandatory approach to what OFRs should contain, but if directors are to make a bona fide judgment of the information necessary to understand a company's performance and prosperity, health and safety issues should be included as well as environmental impacts.
	My Bill is only part of the jigsaw necessary to ratchet up what companies do to protect the health and safety of their employees and others affected by their activities. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) has introduced a Bill to enhance penalties under the Health and Safety Act at Work, etc. Act 1974. There is also the separate issue of a new offence of corporate killing, which the Government made a manifesto commitment to introduce. My Bill is supported by the TUC and the Centre for Corporate Accountability. Mike Holder, the chairman of the Black Country chamber of commerce, has told me that he supports the Bill and any measures to improve health and safety at work. I am also grateful for the support that the Bill has so far gathered from both sides of the House. If leave is obtained today, I will seek to obtain even wider support for its aims.
	The health and safety of employees and the public requires that company directors have a clear vested interest in health and safety matters. Obliging a company to appoint one of its directors as the health and safety director, and imposing duties on that director and others regarding health and safety will do that.
	I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Ross Cranston, Mr. Richard Allan, Tony Baldry, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. Frank Doran, Angela Eagle, Linda Gilroy, Mr. Tony Lloyd, Shona McIsaac, and Lawrie Quinn.

Company Directors (Health and Safety) Bill

Ross Cranston accordingly presented a Bill to require companies to appoint a director as the health and safety director; and to impose duties on this director and on other directors of companies in relation to health and safety; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 June, and to be printed [Bill 82].

Extradition Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Bob Ainsworth: I beg to move,
	That the programme order of 9th December 2002 in relation to the Extradition Bill be amended by the substitution for paragraphs 4 and 5 of the following:
	(4) Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on a programme motion varying this order which is moved on the day on which the proceedings on consideration are commenced.
	(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on such a programme motion.
	The motion has two purposes. First, it provides for the total amount of time for discussion of the Bill today to be six and a half hours. Secondly, at the end of the Committee stage, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who led for the Opposition, requested two hours for Third Reading rather than the single hour provided for in the original programme motion. We are happy to oblige him in that request.

Nick Hawkins: As the Minister suggested, we have no difficulties with the programme motion. We are content with the Government's proposals.

John Burnett: From the Liberal Democrat Benches, we, too, consent to the motion.
	Question put and agreed to. Orders of the Day

Extradition Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 10
	 — 
	Bail: Scotland

'After section 24 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (bail and bail conditions) insert—
	"24A Bail: extradition proceedings
	(1) In the application of the provisions of this Part by virtue of section 9(2) or 76(2) of the Extradition Act 2003 (judge's powers at extradition hearing), those provisions apply with the modifications that—
	(a) references to the prosecutor are to be read as references to a person acting on behalf of the territory to which extradition is sought;
	(b) the right of the Lord Advocate mentioned in section 24(2) of this Act applies to a person subject to extradition proceedings as it applies to a person charged with any crime or offence;
	(c) the following do not apply—
	(i) paragraph (b) of section 24(3); and
	(ii) subsection (3) of section 30; and
	(d) sections 28(1) and 33 apply to a person subject to extradition proceedings as they apply to an accused.
	(2) Section 32 of this Act applies in relation to a refusal of bail, the amount of bail or a decision to allow bail or ordain appearance in proceedings under this Part as the Part applies by virtue of the sections of that Act of 2003 mentioned in subsection (1) above.
	(3) The Scottish Ministers may, by order, for the purposes of section 9(2) or 76(2) of the Extradition Act 2003 make such amendments to this Part as they consider necessary or expedient.
	(4) The order making power in subsection (3) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament.".'.
	—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Bob Ainsworth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government new clause 12—Undertaking in relation to person serving sentence.
	Government new clause 13—Extradition following deferral for competing claim.
	Government new clause 14—Person charged with offence in United Kingdom.
	Government new clause 15—Person serving sentence in United Kingdom.
	Government new clause 17—Appeal against grant of bail.
	Government new clause 18—Remand to local authority accommodation.
	Amendment No. 20, in clause 2, page 1, line 17, at end insert—
	'(c) The statement referred to in subsections (3) and (5) shall conform with the provisions of the model warrant annexed to the framework decision.'.
	Amendment No. 18, in page 2, line 6, at end insert—
	'(c) the terms "accused" in paragraph (a) above, and "for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence" in paragraph (b) above, are understood to mean:
	(i) that sufficient evidence has already been gathered to bring a prosecution and to commit to trial the person in respect of whom the warrant is issued; and
	(ii) the extradition sought by the requesting state must be only for the purpose of putting the person on trial, and not for the purpose of interrogation or evidence gathering; and
	(iii) that if, after the extradition has been granted, it emerges that the requesting country, in the opinion of the judge granting the extradition, has not fulfilled these conditions, the person shall be returned to the United Kingdom, upon an order from the appropriate judge.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 35 to 37, 43 and 44.
	Amendment No. 4, in page 18, line 30, leave out clause 39.
	Government amendment No. 50.
	Amendment No. 92, in clause 65, page 33, line 44, at end insert—
	', as provided for in section 2(7)'.
	Government amendments Nos. 53 to 56, 59, 32, 62, 33, 63 and 65.
	Amendment No. 93, in clause 83, page 42, leave out lines 9 to 11.
	Government amendment No. 66.
	Amendment No. 94, in clause 85, page 43, leave out lines 16 to 18.
	Government amendments Nos. 14, 67 to 73, 6, 76, 77, 11 to 13, 83, 84 and 87.

Bob Ainsworth: This is a large group of new clauses and amendments. I shall begin with new clauses 10, 17 and 18 and amendments Nos. 32, 33, 83, 84 and 87, which are concerned with bail provisions in extradition proceedings, especially the right of the requesting state to appeal against bail granted to a fugitive.
	New clause 18 covers the position of juveniles who are subject to an extradition request. New clause 10 and amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 84 take account of the slightly different bail rules that apply in Scotland.
	During extradition proceedings, the fugitive can either be held on remand or granted bail, at the discretion of the judge. For the first time, we are creating a presumption in favour of bail in extradition cases. The fugitive will have the right of appeal against a decision to remand him. However, as currently drafted, the Bill does not provide a similar right to the requesting state to appeal against a decision to grant bail, even though the prosecution has that right in normal domestic cases. We believe that it would be desirable to keep extradition bail law as closely as possible in line with normal bail provisions, so we want to rectify that omission, which is what this set of amendments will do.
	I shall try to be brief. This is a very extensive group of amendments, and I do not want to waste the House's time on the relatively non-controversial or technical amendments, so I shall try to move as quickly as I can through my speaking notes to allow the maximum time to consider those issues of substance that remain to be discussed.
	On Government amendments Nos. 32 and 33, the police in Scotland, unlike in England and Wales, have no power to grant bail. However, the Lord Advocate has the power to grant bail to any person charged with any crime or offence. Proposed new section 24A(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 will make it clear that the Lord Advocate should mirror the provisions in relation to a person subject to extradition proceedings that apply in England and Wales. Government amendment No. 84 is purely a drafting change that makes no difference of substance.
	Government new clauses 12 and 13 are purely technical. The Bill contains provisions that will allow us to seek undertakings when we send a serving prisoner abroad to stand trial. The Bill also covers situations where extradition is halted while a competing claim is considered, but a decision is taken to proceed with the original request. Both those provisions need to be slightly modified in cases where the fugitive consents to extradition, and those new clauses will achieve that.
	Government new clauses 14 and 15 deal with the situation where a person who is subject to an extradition request in the United Kingdom is charged with an offence in the UK or is serving a sentence of detention here. As currently drafted, part 1 will require a judge to adjourn the extradition if at any time he is informed that the fugitive has been charged with a domestic UK offence. Similarly, if a person is serving a sentence of detention in the UK, the judge has the power to adjourn until such time as the sentence has been served.
	However, under part 2, in the same circumstances and even though the judge is fully aware of the charge or the sentence, he must allow the case to run its full course and then refer it to the Secretary of State. Under part 2, the power to adjourn proceedings rests with the Secretary of State and can be exercised only when the case has reached him. Government new clauses 14 and 15 are necessary to bring part 2 into line with part 1, to ensure that we have a standard approach, so that such part 2 extradition cases can be adjourned, thus not wasting the court's time or the taxpayer's money.

John Bercow: With reference to Government new clause 14(4) and the exercise of judicial power, is there an entitlement to appeal?

Bob Ainsworth: There is entitlement to appeal against all decisions taken under part 1 and part 2. However, in part 1 countries—our European Union partners under the European arrest warrant procedures—a strict time limit is applied to how long can be taken to deal with those appeals. We are attempting to introduce a streamlined extradition system—particularly streamlined in relation to our EU partners—and to prevent to the maximum possible degree the lengthy proceedings that take place under our current, totally unacceptable extradition arrangements. That is the purpose of new clauses 14 and 15: to bring part 2 into line with part 1, so that the cases can be adjourned, and so that there is not the unnecessary requirement to continue to the end knowing that the proceedings will have to be stopped in the final analysis.
	Having looked at the new clauses and some of the associated amendments in this group, I shall now deal with amendments Nos. 20 and 18, tabled by Conservative Members, which refer to clause 2. I do not believe that there is much difference between the Government's position and that of the Opposition. That was reflected in the constructive discussion that we had on these issues in Committee. I said that I would go away and consider some of the points raised in Committee, and having done so, I am pleased to have the opportunity to set out the conclusions that we have reached.
	With regard to accusation cases, both sides of the House are agreed that extradition should only be possible for the purpose of putting a person on trial. It should not be possible for the purpose of interrogation or for the purposes of evidence gathering. Similarly, in conviction cases, the purpose of extradition should be that a person serves the sentence that has been imposed, or, if he has escaped before the sentencing process, that he can be sentenced. If Opposition Members examine the Bill, they will see that it already achieves that. A part 1 warrant is an arrest warrant that contains two key elements: the statement and the information. The contents of the statement and the information vary slightly depending on whether it is an accusation or conviction case. The information includes such details as the particulars of the person's identity or any other warrant, the circumstances of the offence, the particulars of the sentence that would be available to the court, or, in a conviction case, the sentence that has already been imposed.
	Of more importance for present purposes, however, is what is contained in the statement. If hon. Members look at clause 2(3), they will see that what is required, first, with conviction cases, is that not only must a person be accused of an offence in a requesting state, but the warrant must have been issued with a view to his arrest and extradition to the category 1 territory for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence. That is unambiguous language: it is not about interrogation, and it does not allow extradition for the purpose of evidence gathering or fishing expeditions; it is about putting a person on trial. No other meaning can be attached to those words.
	I know that that position is supported by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who said in Committee:
	"I would be happy to use the words in the framework document, which are 'for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution'."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 9 January 2003; c. 53.]
	I would suggest that the words,
	"for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence"
	are significantly close to
	"for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution".
	The amendment would make absolutely no difference.
	Similarly, in conviction cases, the Bill provides that the statement must say that the
	"warrant is issued with a view to his arrest and extradition to the category 1 territory for the purpose of being sentenced for the offence or of serving a sentence of imprisonment or another form of detention imposed in respect of the offence."
	Again, the position is unambiguous: if the statement does not contain the relevant information, the UK designated authority will be unable to certify it, and no further action could be taken on the extradition request.
	Having set out why I believe that the Bill in its present form achieves what we want, I shall say a few words about the Opposition amendments.

George Howarth: Having checked clause 2(3), I can see that it is in fairly unambiguous language. I wonder whether my hon. Friend could clarify one matter. In some systems, for example in Spain and Italy, where there are investigating magistrates, the process between arrest, investigation and standing trial is not as clear as in our system. How would the provision apply in those circumstances?

Bob Ainsworth: We already extradite people, and have done so for a long time, to those jurisdictions. We do so for the purposes of their being put on trial, and not for the purposes of investigation taking place. A clear statement will be required in the warrant, the exact wording of which I have just read out, and the judicial authority that makes that request will have had to sign up to that statement. The National Criminal Intelligence Service, which will be the designated authority that will look at those incoming requests, will examine that statement, and if it is not in compliance with that requirement, it will say so, and will effectively stop the extradition proceedings before they even commence. We have a record in this area: although there are many other problems in relation to extradition, I have yet to hear of a situation in which the arrangements for requests from states that are our regular extradition partners have caused problems in the past, and I do not expect the system to change or problems to be caused in the future.
	Having said what the Bill clearly requires and prevents, let me turn to amendment No. 20, which requires that any warrant should conform to the model warrant attached to the framework decision. The simple point to make is that that will happen already. The requirements of the Bill mean that all the information included in the model warrant has to be supplied if extradition is to take place.
	I consider amendment No. 18 unnecessary, but we should not let it pass without comment. It states that if a court abroad has not acted in accordance with the wishes of a British judge, a fugitive held abroad shall be released and returned to Britain on the order of a British judge. I do not know whether Conservative Members can imagine that operating in reverse, and how we would we feel about a German or French judge being able to order the release of somebody who was in front of a court in the UK. I find it astonishing: it harks back to empire days when we sent a gunboat round to ensure that people did things in the British way. I am not sure that it is in any way workable, and it is certainly not needed. In the light of that explanation of how the Bill will work with its current wording, I ask Conservative Members not to press the amendments to a Division.
	I trust that all hon. Members will welcome Government amendments Nos. 35 to 37. They should be appreciated by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members because they respond to a point raised by representatives of both parties in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and other members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs should also welcome them because they raised the same concern. The amendments will make a European arrest warrant acceptable only if it is issued by a judicial authority in a requesting state. If the warrant came from any other source, the UK designated authority would be unable to certify it and no further action could be taken on it. The stipulation that the warrant must be issued by a judicial authority is already in the framework document, so the amendments will make little difference in practice. Nevertheless, we thought it right to respond to the wishes of those who raised the issue and to make the guarantee explicit in the Bill.
	Government amendment No. 37 will create a power to disapply the judicial requirement in respect of requests from certain countries that were issued before January 2004, which is when the European arrest warrant regime is due to come into effect. It is a transitional measure to enable the UK to deal with requests that are already on the Schengen information system when the UK becomes a party to the system in 2004. Pre-existing requests require a judicial authority to issue a domestic arrest warrant and a judge's permission would normally be required before requests were placed on the Schengen information system. However, some countries might put information on the system at the instigation of a police officer. In such circumstances, a person for whom extradition is sought may try to delay proceedings by claiming that the request did not come from a judicial authority. Given that a judicial authority must have backed the warrant in the first place, such arguments may well not succeed but we want to pre-empt attempts to delay and frustrate the extradition process. The problem will not arise after countries begin to operate a system of European arrest warrants, so we require only a limited short-term measure.
	Government amendments Nos. 43 and 63 respond to a concern raised in Committee. A person's identity is an important aspect of the extradition process and no hon. Member would want the Bill to allow the extradition of a person other than a person for whom extradition was sought. The Bill provides that, at the initial hearing that is held almost immediately after a person is arrested, the judge must decide whether the person before him is the person for whom the extradition request has been made. That process is not to determine whether extradition should occur and still less about determining whether a person is guilty of the crime for which his extradition is sought, but to ensure that the right person has been caught.
	The question of identity might be disputed in several cases. The Bill's current drafting requires the judge at the initial hearing to be satisfied that the person in court is the person for whom the warrant was issued. If the judge is not satisfied of that, the person must be discharged. It was suggested in Committee that the Bill should specify the standard of proof that would be required to determine that. That is a sensible suggestion and the amendments introduce the civil test of the balance of probabilities.
	There are several reasons why we opted for the civil test rather than the criminal test. Extradition is not a prosecution and thus there is no need to apply the criminal test slavishly. However, it is an important fact that people who are subject to extradition requests are usually serious criminals, including terrorists, and such people are often adept at making their identity ambiguous or having multiple identities. If we had decided to use the criminal standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt, we might be unable to be certain of people's identity, which would allow them to walk free irrespective of the seriousness of the crime of which they were accused. The civil test, which is regularly used in, and understood by, British courts, is an appropriate way to ensure that a judge may reach a reasonable decision about a person's identity.
	Government amendments Nos. 44, 59 and 62 relate to an issue that was discussed at length in Committee. They will require the judge at the initial hearing to make the requested person aware of the contents of the warrant for arrest and extradition. The fugitive will already be aware of the contents of the warrant in the vast majority of cases because the police will generally show such people the contents of the warrant at the time of arrest or shortly after. In addition, the amendments will allow a fugitive or his legal representative to demand to see the warrant at any time. The new provisions make little difference in practice, but we hope that they represent a useful additional safeguard and that Opposition Members will welcome them.
	Amendment No. 4 has been tabled by the Conservative party, and we have tried long and hard to work out its rationale. Clause 39 provides that no person who has claimed asylum shall be extradited until a decision has been reached on that claim. The Government are all too aware that the asylum system has been subject to abuse and has been used to delay and frustrate the extradition process. That is why we included provisions to address that difficult situation and spurious asylum claims and appeals. If it is considered that an asylum claim is clearly unfounded, it can be certified as such by the Secretary of State when he refuses the claim. That certificate will mean that a person will be able to appeal against the asylum refusal only after extradition. The amendment would delete the entire clause and undo our attempt to provide a solution to such potential abuse.
	I hope that the Opposition will welcome Government amendments Nos. 50 and 67 to 69. The right to representation at a trial and the right to legal aid remain the cornerstones of our judicial system. We tabled the amendments to ensure that the right to legal aid that is enshrined in the Access to Justice Act 1999 applies to the issue of consenting to extradition. They provide that, before a judge accepts a fugitive's consent to extradition, he must check that that person had the opportunity to receive independent legal advice. In some cases, the fugitive would have declined to apply for legal aid after he had been advised that he was entitled to it. The underlying principle is that nobody should consent to extradition unless the opportunity for legal advice has been made available to them.
	Although amendment No. 92 is well intentioned, it is not needed and does not add anything to the safeguards in the Bill. Under clause 2, the UK's designated authority—which will be the National Criminal Intelligence Service or the Crown Office in Scotland—can certify an incoming European arrest warrant only if it believes that the request has come from an appropriate judicial authority. Clauses 63 to 65 deal with what constitutes an extradition offence in order for the dual criminality requirement not to apply. I cannot therefore see what purpose would be served by trying to link clauses 2 and 65, as the amendment would. The definition is already identical, so the point is fully covered.
	Government amendments Nos. 53 to 56 and 70 to 73 are purely drafting amendments. Unless somebody insists that I go into them, I shall not detain the House.
	I turn to amendments Nos. 93 and 94 and Government amendments Nos. 65 and 66, which were tabled in response to concerns that have been raised. I hope that the House agrees that the Government amendments are a constructive answer. Requests from part 2 countries will often need to be accompanied by prima facie evidence. The amendments are concerned with the provisions that allow for documentary or summary evidence to be admitted in court. At present, evidence in those forms is not generally admissible. That might mean that we have to require, for example, a foreign witness to give evidence in person rather than accepting a police officer's account of what the witness had told him. That is particularly wasteful and cumbersome in cases where evidence is uncontested. Accordingly, the Bill provides for hearsay evidence to be admitted.
	There were concerns raised in Committee surrounding a case where the judge did not have the discretion to refuse to accept documentary or summary evidence if he had reason to believe that the evidence was faulty or flawed. We have listened to those arguments and given the district judge much greater discretion not to accept such evidence if he so chooses. I should add the reassurance that the Bill does not oblige the person whose extradition is sought to give evidence in summary; nor will it prevent the person from challenging any evidence that is given in summary or on behalf of the requesting state. I know that that was a particular concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes). I hope that it is clear that those circumstances do not apply. There is no way that the defendant in such cases will be prevented from giving evidence in person.
	Government amendments Nos. 14 and 6 clarify the role of Scottish Ministers to order the extradition or discharge of a person arrested under part 2. Amendment No. 6 makes it clear that Scottish Ministers will be able to make a deferral order only when they are considering competing requests.
	The House may know that the Bill deals with a situation where two or more competing requests are received in respect of the same person. It provides that proceedings are deferred until a decision is taken on which should be given priority. It also provides for matters to be picked up again once that decision has been taken. Government amendments Nos. 76, 77 and 11 rectify an omission by specifying the appropriate judge in the deferred case.
	Government amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are purely technical adaptations that are required for the Scottish jurisdiction. Amendment No. 12 makes it clear that all the rules of court to be made under this legislation will be made by act of adjournal in Scotland. Amendment No. 13 reflects the different terminology used in Scotland, where appeals are "abandoned" rather than "discontinued".
	I am sorry that this has taken so long, but the group of amendments is extensive. I commend the Government amendments to the House and ask the Opposition to consider withdrawing amendments Nos. 20, 18, 4, 92, 93 and 94.

Nick Hawkins: As the Minister has said, this is a detailed group of amendments. We on the Front Benches hope that our colleagues will bear with us as we wrestle with the complexities and technicalities of extradition law and procedure.
	I should stress at the outset that we welcome some of the provisions in the Bill. They are a welcome improvement and will help our police to extradite back to the United Kingdom people who are wanted here for serious offences. We welcome the fact that not only in this group of amendments but in subsequent ones, the Government have made several concessions in response to points that we made in Committee. However, they have not addressed all our concerns—not least the very big issue, as the Minister is well aware, of the European arrest warrant and the consequences of it. The Government have signed up to offences in the framework decision list, many of which are vague and some of which are not offences in UK law. There is a danger that British subjects will be shipped abroad without a British court being able to analyse or challenge the basis of a warrant issued by a foreign court.
	We repeatedly raised in Committee the example of the British plane spotters in the Kalamata court in Greece. That was a dire warning, which we discussed extensively. Since proceedings in Committee were concluded, we have had a further dire warning of the risk to UK citizens as a result of paperwork sent from one country to another demanding someone's arrest. The British pensioner Derek Bond was held for weeks in South Africa because the American authorities mistakenly thought that he was a wanted man. We shall deal later with the detail of why we feel that the draconian powers in part 1 should apply only to terrorist offences, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said on Second Reading.
	We welcome Government new clauses 10, 17 and 18 and Government amendments Nos. 32, 33, 83, 84 and 87. They are a response by the Government to concerns we raised in Committee. A foreign requesting country will now have the right to appeal against the granting of bail. I raised in Committee and on other occasions the fact that bail is too readily available in a wide variety of criminal proceedings in such courts. In UK courts, the granting of bail certainly ought to be reviewable in extradition cases, so we welcome what the Government have done.
	Government new clause 18 deals with juveniles going to local authority secure accommodation if they are not granted bail. Related amendments, as the Minister said, deal with the slightly different bail arrangements in Scotland. We accept entirely that the Government are once again responding to concerns that we and others have raised. However, in passing, will the Minister note that we still have great concerns about the limited quantity and poor quality of local authority secure accommodation? There may be relatively few cases in which that will be needed in an extradition context, but we will no doubt return to the issue in other legislation and other debates.
	Government new clauses 12 and 13 are technical, as the Minister said, and we are happy to accept what the Government are suggesting. Government new clauses 14 and 15 address a mismatch between part 2 and part 1. It is good that the Government now accept that part 2 proceedings should be brought into line with part 1 on the issue of adjournment if a judge is informed that the fugitive has been charged with a UK offence or is a serving UK prisoner. We appreciate the need for consistency, but given the Secretary of State's recent mauling on many issues at the hands of British judges, it is perhaps a little surprising that he is abandoning his decision-making power and giving it back to the judges.
	Our amendments Nos. 20 and 18 go together to some extent. We intend to ask the House to divide on amendment No. 20, although I am advised by the expert Clerks that the vote will not take place at the end of the debate on this group of amendments, but later in our proceedings. We have made it clear that we are not comfortable with the concept of the European arrest warrant. We said in Committee that legislation introduced in the House should be honest and complete, and that all UK citizens should be able to see clearly what they are being made subject to by the Government. As a result, the proposed warrant ought to be included in the Bill—that is what our amendment No. 20 seeks to do, and we see no good reason why the wording of the warrant should not be included in the legislation. That must help honesty, clarity and—a word Ministers are fond of—transparency.
	If time had permitted, we might have sought a vote on amendment No. 18, but we do not want to detain the House in too many Divisions this afternoon and this evening. It may well be that the matter is revisited in another place, but the amendment expresses our concern that the Bill threatens the freedom of all UK citizens. Our concerns are widely shared across the political spectrum by organisations like Justice and Liberty, traditionally perceived as being on the left, and the Democracy Movement and the Freedom Association, traditionally thought of as on the right. Once again, I urge the Government to think about exactly what they are doing.
	I know that it would be embarrassing for the Government to do that because they have already signed up to the framework decision, but in the Labour-dominated Select Committee on Home Affairs many concerns were expressed about the way in which justice systems operate, not only in current EU countries such as Italy, Spain and Greece, but—this was raised in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), a distinguished former shadow Foreign Secretary and shadow Defence Secretary—in future EU countries such as, perhaps, Turkey and ex-Warsaw pact countries. Distinguished jurists such as Leo Price QC and Torquil Dick Ericson have written extensively about those concerns, as have many specialist extradition lawyers practising in the UK who deal with the sharp end of extradition cases. We referred to a number of those concerns in Committee. We need the protections that we are suggesting, and I stress again that we will not withdraw amendment No. 20, but will press it to a Division.

George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman said that he wants to include the European arrest warrant in the Bill, and that that is the purpose of amendment No. 20 in particular. However, does he accept that clause 2(3)(b) states that
	"the Part 1 warrant is issued with a view to his arrest and extradition to the category 1 territory for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence"?
	The key word is "prosecuted". In view of that and the assurance that my hon. Friend the Minister gave me, does the hon. Gentleman not think that his concern has been covered?

Nick Hawkins: I do not accept that. Almost exactly the same words as those that the hon. Gentleman has just read out were used by the Minister in a letter to me about the issues that we raised in Committee. We feel that it would be much better and clearer if the specific wording that we suggest were included in the Bill.
	Government amendments Nos. 35 and 36, as the Minister said, represent a significant concession made in response to concerns that we have raised, along with members of his own party and the Home Affairs Committee. We stressed that any warrants should be issued only by judicial authorities overseas. We are rather concerned that in Government amendment No. 37, the Government want a transitional right to disapply the concession if a country has already used the so-called Schengen information system for requests before 1 January 2004. We are not comfortable with the disapplication—the restriction to a judicial authority should apply to all requests whenever they are made. We do not have much faith in bureaucratic European administrative systems of justice, about which we have expressed concerns before. I do not want to be churlish—we recognise that the main thrust of the Government amendments is to make a concession in response to concerns expressed by the Home Affairs Committee and us—but there is an element of giving with one hand then snatching a little bit back with the other.
	Government amendment No. 43 and the linked Government amendment No. 63 deal with the need to define the standard of proof to be used when determining the fugitive's identity at the initial hearing. I understand from a letter that the Minister wrote to me that there was particular concern following the tragic and appalling murder of Detective Constable Oake in Manchester. When the defendant appeared in court, the Crown Prosecution Service said that it could not be certain that the information that it had on the defendant's identity was correct. In the light of that tragic and appalling case, which once again demonstrated how much we owe to the brave police officers who are dealing with those matters at the sharp end, we have to bear in mind the standard of proof used to determine identity. The Government have chosen the civil balance of probabilities test. There was quite a bit of discussion about what was the appropriate test in Committee, and we accept the Government's concern about terrorists and other serious criminals who may seek actively to destroy any documents from which they could be identified. However, we also need to look at the case of the blameless British pensioner Derek Bond, who was arrested in South Africa on the request of the FBI. What would a balance of probabilities test of identity have led to if a European requesting state were using a European arrest warrant to arrest somebody?

John Bercow: I am not a lawyer—I say that as a matter of pride, although I have never held it against my hon. Friend that he is. With reference to the extensive and as yet unamended scope of the European arrest warrant, what assessment has he made of the compatibility of the Government's intended policy with the content of the subsidiarity and proportionality protocol of the treaty of Amsterdam?

Nick Hawkins: We have many concerns about the European arrest warrant. We do not think that it is proportional, and the Government were wrong to sign up to the framework decision before these matters were debated in Parliament. My hon. Friend is therefore on to something. However, we have to recognise—I hope that the Minister will bear this serious point in mind—that when talking about what should be the appropriate standard of proof we are talking about the lesser of two evils. I am sure that in another place those who are very learned in the law will return to this point, but I accept the choice that the Government made for the reasons set out by the Minister today, in Committee and in correspondence. However, he, in turn, will accept that this is a serious matter and that there can be two different views on which is the lesser of two evils. I therefore hope that he and those who work with him will keep that under review when the Bill goes to another place.
	Government amendments Nos. 42, 59 and 62, which are linked, represent a welcome concession to a point that we raised in Committee—it was also raised by the Select Committee on Home Affairs—that the district judge should ensure that the person arrested is shown the warrant that is the basis for that person's arrest.
	Amendment No. 4 seeks to leave out clause 39. I stress to the Minister, who was expressing some puzzlement about where we were coming from, that we wanted to probe to ensure that we would be able on Report to examine the problem of someone who may claim to be seeking asylum. The Minister has said that he wants there to be a fall-back position where the Secretary of State can say, "This is clearly a bogus claim." We were saying that always, in every case, the matter of whether someone should be extradited—we are talking in many cases about potential terrorists and serious criminals—should be gone through first, and that no delays should be injected into the system by way of somebody submitting an asylum case.
	Colleagues who served in Committee, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, were extremely concerned about the delays that the pre-existing system has injected. We know that one of the ways in which so many people who might properly be extradited have delayed the process in the past has been by claiming asylum. I see the Minister nodding his assent to that. That is what we were getting at. I hope that the Minister will keep this serious issue under review. All Members of all parties in the House know that there is great concern throughout the United Kingdom about bogus asylum seekers and about the number who disappear into the black economy, where the Government have no way of finding them, or deporting those who may be a threat to our security and have no right to be here.
	We do not want another category being created of those who should be deported because they should be extradited to face charges elsewhere delaying matters by claiming asylum. The misuse of our legal system by a man called Rachid Ramda was referred to extensively by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon. The French authorities wanted him extradited from the UK to face very serious charges to do with the bombing of the Paris metro. I have heard what the Minister has said, but I hope in responding to the debate he will confirm that he and those who advise him will keep this serious matter under review.
	I hope that by tabling the amendment we will avoid the tendency of the Minister, the Home Secretary and, indeed, the Prime Minister to misdescribe the Opposition's position, wrongly accusing us of being soft or stopping the Government being tough when we have raised concerns about their legislation. It is clear that we are trying to persuade the Government to toughen up their proposals and to close loopholes. We hope that they will understand our point of view and where we are coming from, and will not seek to misrepresent our position in future debates or in another place.
	Government amendments Nos. 50, 67 and 69, which are linked, are welcome concessions to points that we raised in Committee. It is vital that a person considering giving consent to extradition must have had an opportunity to obtain independent legal advice first before consenting. The Minister says that he has thought about that and is prepared to accept that we were correct on that matter in Committee. I am glad that the Government have listened to us and to concerns expressed from many other sources and have made the concessions.
	Amendment No. 92 has been tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I agree with the Minister that it is perhaps a minor matter that does not add very much, but no doubt the Liberal Democrats will speak to their amendment.
	Government amendments Nos. 53 to 56 and 70 to 73, which are linked, bring terminology in line with the Courts Bill. The Minister said that he would not spend much time on these amendments unless someone asked him to do so. However, when he responds to the debate, I would ask him to cover one particular point. The Courts Bill, of course, is not yet law. It has had what I think could accurately be described as a rocky passage in another place. I suspect that that passage will continue when the proposed legislation comes to this place. More and more Labour Back-Bench Members have been lobbied—I watched that happen as recently as last week—by angry lay magistrates, who are furious at the Government's broken promises over the Courts Bill.
	I hope that the Government realise that they should not assume in trying to amend this Bill to fit in with the Courts Bill that the Courts Bill will get through Parliament in its current form. We drew attention in Committee to the Government's lack of joined-up government—a phrase that they often use—with yet another measure in their huge raft of Home Office Bills, which is the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, which has also begun its passage in another place. We sought to put a line in that Bill and also in the Bill that is before us to suggest that the two measures needed to be co-ordinated. The Government resisted that approach in Committee and the issue was not selected for debate today. I hope that the Government, having said that the Bill needs to fit in with the Courts Bill, will not forget the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill.
	Government amendments Nos. 65 and 66 are, again, a Government concession, dealing with evidence in summary form. They seek to deal with concerns that we and the Home Affairs Committee expressed. The Government are removing "must" in clause 83 and replacing it with "may", to make it clear that a judge does not have to accept evidence where the provenance or credibility of that evidence is in doubt. We welcome that concession to the important points that we made in Committee.
	Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 93 and 94 are on the same point. They seek to delete parts of clauses 83 and 85, and also go to the issue of "must".
	Government amendments Nos. 14 and 6, which are linked, are technical Scottish amendments. They make it clear that Scottish Ministers exercise functions only when the fugitive is in Scotland.
	Government amendments Nos. 76, 77 and 11 are technical amendments that relate to who the appropriate judge is when a case is deferred after a competing request has been submitted. We have no problem with that.
	Government amendments Nos. 12 and 13 deal with Scottish legal terminology. I remember the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) telling us in Committee about acts of adjournal, and about appeals being abandoned, not discontinued, in Scotland. We are glad that the Government have listened to Scots lawyers on these points. There are further Scottish issues that we will come to when dealing with another group of amendments. Having put forward the amendments on which we feel strongly, that is all that I need to say about this group of amendments.

John Burnett: As a lead into this group of amendments, we have always accepted for category 1 countries mutual recognition. We understand that. However, we do not believe that there should be mutual recognition without safeguards. It is imperative that there are safeguards.
	I welcome some of the amendments that the Government have introduced, which have been referred to by both the Minister and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), which contain safeguards in relation to matters that especially concerned us. I refer particularly to specialty, and the new clause that relates to the death penalty. No country that still imposes the death penalty should be within category 1. That is clear from the Government's amendment.
	I am glad that the Government have decided to make the appropriate Scottish amendments following the arguments that were advanced in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).
	We had a great deal of help from the Select Committee on Home Affairs during consideration of the Bill in Committee. The Minister has made a number of concessions in relation to matters that were raised not only by the Home Affairs Committee but also by the Standing Committee. The Minister has said that he has made it clear that there was no intention to designate anyone other than United Kingdom enforcement personnel as an "appropriate person", and we welcome the clauses that make it clear that only constables, officers of Customs and Excise and armed forces police officers will be able to execute the European arrest warrant.
	There were further important discussions on judicial authority and its definition. Government amendments Nos. 35 to 37 make it clear that the warrant will be acceptable only if it has been issued by judicial authority. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath mentioned his concerns about the transitional provisions, which I share. In the other place, there will be opportunities for further probing and discussion of those arrangements. Our amendments seek to tighten up the procedure, and I shall advert to them shortly.
	In particular, I am pleased in connection with the definition of the standard proof in determining a fugitive's identity. That will also be considered in the other place, with regard to whether a balance of probabilities is the right basis for a judgment or whether the matter should be beyond all reasonable doubt. The Minister made the point that extradition is not prosecution, which I accept.
	I should like now to deal with the Liberal Democrat amendments. We tabled amendment No. 92, which seeks to amend clause 65, because we believe that the designated authority must be satisfied that the authority issuing the warrant in the category 1 country has that function. That must be clear beyond all reasonable doubt. The warrant should not be issued by anybody other than that authority and the judge must be satisfied that that is the case. The amendment would provide an additional safeguard and I look forward to hearing the Minister's view about it.
	Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 seek to amend clauses 83 and 85. They are similar amendments that seek to strike out subsections with exactly the same wording:
	"A summary in a document of a statement made by a person must be treated as a statement made by the person in the document for the purposes of subsection (2)."
	Although this matter might sound arcane, those are very important points. A summary is not good enough. A judge must see the evidence itself. A summary by someone other than the person in question is almost hearsay about hearsay. We must have what the person actually said and not what someone else believes they said. There is room for huge error and abuse in this matter. I believe that the Minister said that there was no way that a defendant could be prevented from giving evidence in person, but we must face the fact that the defendant will not be present to do so in all such cases.
	As I said, we have made progress with the Bill and the Government have made concessions, which is welcome. Nevertheless, for reasons that we will explore later, not least the fact that we have not been satisfied about minimum standards of justice in all putative category 1 countries and about the nebulousness of the 32 offences set out in the Bill—a matter that we will have a chance to discuss later—we must have safeguards in the light of the shortcomings that exist. It is our job today, just as it will be the job of Members of the other place, to tighten up the Bill to ensure that there are no miscarriages of justice and that justice and fairness prevail in respect of our country.

Tom Harris: I shall speak very briefly, because, like the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I am not a lawyer and am rather proud of that fact. None the less, serving on the Standing Committee for a few sittings, which felt like many months, gave me a crash course in the law of England and Scotland, for which I am grateful.
	I should like to respond to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) with regard to Government amendment No. 43, which relates to the "balance of probabilities" in respect of a fugitive's identity. I understand why people are concerned about the case of Mr. Derek Bond, who was unjustly and unwisely held in South Africa for two weeks while the FBI carried out investigations, but I think that the public would be ill-served if we picked on that one specific and dramatic case as a reason for saying that the balance of probabilities should not be used in relation to the identity of a wanted person. The case was particularly unusual, and we as politicians must accept that, because of the intricate and sophisticated nature of intercontinental investigations, the identity of suspects occasionally cannot be verified and mistakes are made, but that does not necessarily mean that we will not pursue those investigations. We must remember that, in the case of Mr. Bond, to whom we all feel sympathetic, the true identity of the suspect was revealed after much investigation. I do not think that his case can be used as a reason for saying that we can give up on that specific type of inquiry by the FBI or any other international agencies.
	On amendment No. 4, which is an Opposition amendment, asylum is a big issue in my constituency and those of many other hon. Members. If we accept the amendment, we will completely remove from the Bill all references to asylum. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath suggested, that does not mean that asylum would no longer be used as a way of delaying procedures. As I understand it, the deletion of clause 39 would ensure that there were no guidelines at all about whether and in what circumstances accused persons could apply for asylum. I have personal experience of people claiming asylum for all sorts of ill-chosen motives.
	I would like to hear whether the hon. Gentleman accepts that the removal of clause 39 would create a far less specific and more vague asylum system. As the Bill would contain no specific reference to asylum, people on whom warrants were enforced would use every possible means, including asylum, to delay their extradition. Some people may accuse the Government of being a bit too harsh on asylum seekers by refusing to accept the amendment. I disagree. The Bill already contains a very specific measure that allows people to appeal against an asylum decision that goes against them, albeit that that appeal has to be made outside the country. I welcome that; in the circumstances, I think it is absolutely justified.
	Amendment No. 18 is fantastic. I love it: only the Conservative party could have tabled an amendment saying that a British or English court can force these Johnny Foreigner courts to send someone home right away because we in this country do not think that they have met their obligations or that their legal system is quite up to the mark. When I read the amendment, I thought, "Only the Conservative party, God bless it, could come up with this sort of imperialist nonsense." The hon. Member for Surrey Heath mentioned that he had some reservations about the terrible bureaucracy in some foreign regimes. Once again—I would have laid money on this—he could not resist mentioning the plane spotters arrested in Greece, who were referred to many times every day in the Standing Committee. The idea that a British judge can decide that a foreign court is not quite up to speed and that we can demand that it sends a suspect back to Britain because we are not happy with its procedures is mind blowing. I hope that the Opposition will force that amendment to a vote, as it defines the philosophy of the modern Conservative party far more than many other things. It is the Ealing comedy amendment. Only in the late 1940s and early 1950s could people have taken such an amendment seriously.
	Let us consider the serious point of reciprocity. Does the hon. Member for Surrey Heath believe that a French, German or Greek court should be allowed to tell a British court that its procedures are incorrect, and that it should send the relevant person back home for trial? I presume that the hon. Gentleman supports the principle of reciprocity and believes that that should be the effect of the amendment, in which case he would be more than happy with the consequences that I outlined. I salute him if that is his genuine conviction; the Conservative party would have turned a corner. However, the amendment is neither reasonable nor acceptable to the majority of people in this country.
	My hon. Friend the Minister gave commitment after commitment in Committee, and made it clear that the Bill explicitly provides that no one will be extradited for anything other than a trial or a sentence. It was made clear many times that the Bill does not provide for extradition for investigation or interrogation. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to accept my hon. Friend's sincerity. He made the point clear many times. We spent day after day in Committee, with no doubt about the terms of the Bill. I ask the Opposition to accept that there is no need for amendment No. 18, except for comic relief.
	For the first time in British legislation, a Bill makes a specific, explicit commitment to protect people from extradition for anything other than serving a sentence or facing trial. The Extradition Act 1989, which was passed under the Conservative Government, made no such distinction or commitment. For the first time, therefore, a Government are committed not to extradite for any reason apart from serving a sentence or facing a trial. I partly hope that the Opposition will press amendment No. 18 to a vote because I would enjoy voting against it. I hope, though, that they will consider it inappropriate.

George Howarth: I congratulate the Minister on the extent to which he listened to the debate in Committee and made appropriate adjustments to the Bill. Everyone accepts that he is going a long way—in some cases, further than some of us wanted.
	I understand from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who opened the debate for the Opposition, that they intend to press amendment No. 20, but not amendment No. 18, to a vote. I am at a loss, because amendment No. 20 states:
	"The statement referred to in subsections (3) and (5) shall conform with the provisions of the model warrant annexed to the framework decision."
	Clause 2(3)(b) appears to cover all the anxieties that the Opposition expressed in Committee and today. When I intervened on the hon. Gentleman to point that out, he dismissed my comment and said that the Opposition would press the amendment anyway.
	I wonder why, given that the Bill covers the hon. Gentleman's anxieties, he wants to include an additional provision that would have the same effect. The obvious conclusion is that he believes that the amendment would circumvent the European arrest warrant. At least, the Opposition want an opportunity to vote against the European arrest warrant. They would probably be happy with it if it were called a "common arrest warrant" or an "arrest warrant for co-operation between states". However, the magic word "Europe" means that they feel obliged to reject it.
	I have not made those comments to poke fun at the Opposition because, by Labour party standards, I am reasonably Eurosceptical. However, a gulf exists between me and most Opposition Members, who appear to feel an obligation to vote against anything European.

Annabelle Ewing: As the hon. Gentleman said, it is not clear whether amendment No. 20 will be pressed to a vote, but does he believe that it would alter the text of the Bill? One could argue that it would introduce legal clarity because it refers to
	"the model warrant annexed to the framework decision."

George Howarth: If the hon. Lady wants greater clarification about what was in the minds of the Opposition, she should have intervened on the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. I have made it a firm principle in my political career never to answer for the Conservative party. I intend to stick to that rigidly.
	The Opposition and the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) made serious points today and in Committee about specific cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) made it clear a few moments ago that it is generally wise to legislate not on specific cases but on general categories. Many hon. Members who are lawyers and are better versed than I am in these things could testify to that.
	I want to revert to an example that was used in Committee because it involves a constituent. Today, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath mentioned the case of Derek Bond, which was heard after our Committee proceedings. He also recounted the case of the plane spotters in Greece. However, in Committee, the case of my constituent Kevan Sloane, who is currently serving a three-and-a-half year sentence in Tenerife, was cited. None of the people in the three cases had to return to this country and subsequently be extradited to the country where the offence was committed. Since my constituent has been mentioned, I want to make his position clear.
	Kevan Sloane was arrested approximately two years ago, initially on five charges of armed robbery. By the time the case got to court, he faced two charges of armed robbery and he was eventually convicted of one. The standard of evidence required to convict him was poor. Two aspects were highly questionable.
	First, my constituent was picked out in an identity parade by a shop assistant who worked in the shop where he had allegedly committed armed robbery. However, the woman had been shown a photograph of him before the identity parade.
	The second piece of evidence given in court was that the perpetrator of the offence in question spoke colloquial Spanish. Apart from visiting his mother in Tenerife occasionally, my constituent has spent all his life in Kirby, and could hardly be thought capable of speaking colloquial Spanish. Nevertheless, despite that and despite the lack of any direct corroborative evidence, he was convicted.
	The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon said in Committee that that case proved the unreliability of foreign courts and the need for additional protections. I believe that my constituent was convicted on the basis of hopelessly flawed evidence, and the proceedings took place in Tenerife—and Madrid, where my constituent's appeal was turned down. I do not think, however, that the Bill would have made any difference, because my constituent was never in this country to be extradited in the first place.

John Burnett: I know that that case causes the hon. Gentleman enormous concerns and that he is a doughty fighter for his constituent, for which I pay tribute to him, but I think that my point in Committee was valid. Before we pass the Bill, we should ensure that minimum standards apply, especially in category 1 countries. In Committee, I gave examples of countries where such standards certainly did not apply.

George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman's whole argument hinges on the question of minimum standards, a phrase also used by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. I accept the need for minimum standards, but all the countries involved signed the framework document and therefore, at least in principle, are "signed up to" minimum standards. I believe that there was a miscarriage of justice in my constituent's case, but to make a general case against the legal system in Spain and Tenerife is, in my view, to go a step too far.

John Burnett: I do not want to repeat all that was said in Committee, but in some EU countries there is no legal aid; in some EU countries there is no provision for interpreters; in some EU countries judges are appointed at the age of 21, and are paid a derisory salary. People are concerned about that, and so they should be.

George Howarth: I am concerned. My point is that commitment to the principle of minimum standards is evidenced by the fact that those countries signed the framework document. Unless the hon. Gentleman thinks it should never be recognised that a country is capable of signing up to a principle and delivering on that over time, he will surely agree that it is not the job of the House or of legislation passed here to redesign the legal systems of other countries, or to require the redesigning of those systems.
	As my hon. Friend the Minister said, if we pursued such ideas to their logical conclusion we would find ourselves returning to the foreign policy of Palmerston, and to gunboat diplomacy. I do not intend to bore the House with a recital of the Don Pacifico affair, but surely the Opposition do not really want us to return to those days.

John Burnett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

George Howarth: I will give way once more, but I want to finish my speech soon.

John Burnett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way a third time. All we are saying is that before a fast-track procedure comes into play, minimum standards should apply in fast-track countries.

George Howarth: I do not know how many times I can reply to the hon. Gentleman's question without repeating myself, which he is doing. Let me simply say that while I accept the need for minimum standards, all those countries signed the framework document and, in doing so, committed themselves to such standards. The fact that the standards do not always apply in specific cases does not alter the fact that the principle has been accepted. It is for the countries to decide, over time, how to implement it.
	I end where I began. Although I do not suspect devious motives, I think the Opposition would rather vote against the whole of this part of the Bill than just vote for their amendment. If truth be told, they probably feel that they must make a stand, and are hanging their hat on amendment No. 20. I do not think amendment No. 20 is appropriate for the purpose; they should have been a little bolder, and voted against the whole section.

Bob Ainsworth: I shall try to be brief, and deal only with the most important points. Let me deal first with what was said by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and supported by the hon. Member for Torridge and North Devon.

John Burnett: West Devon.

Bob Ainsworth: It is disgraceful that Devon should be moved around like that—unforgivable, indeed. I mean the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett).
	Both Members suggested that the list was too vague, and that dropping dual criminality posed a risk to justice. What strikes me is that no one has been able to give even a bad example of how the arrest warrant proposals might have made a difference.
	Opposition Members have majored on the Greek plane spotters case, which was not an extradition case. The plane spotters were accused of an offence that is also an offence in British law, so the dropping of dual criminality would have made no difference. Similarly, the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) was accused of a crime that exists in British law. As for the Derek Bond case, in which the extradition to the United States of a person who was in South Africa was sought, nothing in the Bill would have affected that either.
	No one will be subjected to a "vague list". The generic list is there to facilitate mutual recognition, and to end the requirement for dual criminality in cases covered by it. In the case of any and every request for extradition under the European arrest warrant procedures, the specific crime of which the person is accused will be spelt out on the warrant. It must be an offence in the requesting state: there is nothing vague about that. It must be an offence in French law, or in German law, but not in British law. We expect people who come to our country to abide by our laws and not their own, and the reverse must also be true. We have said that many times, but it needs to be said again.
	The case of Derek Bond raises the issue of identity. The acceptance of the European arrest warrant in our courts, and the issue of identity that arises before extradition, will be dealt with by a British judge. Anyone who says "I am sorry, but I am not the person who is sought in this warrant" will be able to make that case before a British judge.

Oliver Letwin: I am listening to the Minister with interest. If his argument is that the removal of the dual criminality test will have no practical effect, why is he removing it?

Bob Ainsworth: That is not quite the argument that I was making, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. What I said was that the cases that have been prayed in aid against the proposals will not be affected by the proposals in any way. They occurred under current legislation and have nothing to do with dual criminality; indeed, the Greek plane spotters case had nothing to do with extradition. As I have said before, we have three choices. We live in a European Union in which we can all travel freely between our jurisdictions, and huge benefits flow from that, both economically and in terms of individual freedom. However, that point also applies to criminals. We can stand pat and hide behind arcane, cumbersome and extremely expensive extradition arrangements that are hard to operate, and say that that is the barrier against the rest of the world; we can seek to develop a European framework of justice; or we can enter into a method of mutual recognition that enables us to co-operate in an effective and modern way with our European partners.
	Those are the three choices, but the Conservatives appear to have decided, despite the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to gloss over this issue, that they should stand aloof from the rest of the world and behave like a solitary little island, and to ignore the very real problems that would arise in respect of our ability to do justice to the victims of crimes committed in this country.

Oliver Letwin: We will be able to discuss the general points that the Minister is making, and which are wholly misconceived, on Third Reading, but the interesting question is this. Is he admitting that the removal of dual criminality will in fact have a range of practical effects, or is he arguing that it is otiose to remove it? I cannot understand how he can avoid telling the House which of those is the case.

Bob Ainsworth: As I said in Committee—it was also said on Second Reading, and it continues to be our position—the removal of dual criminality is essential to putting in place a streamlined system; there is little doubt about that.

Oliver Letwin: Will it have a practical effect?

Bob Ainsworth: Of course it will have a practical effect. While we are able to bring up issues of dual criminality, which repeatedly happens under current extradition regulations, people will be denied the opportunity to delay and to frustrate by using dual criminality arguments. That will be the practical effect, and that is why we are choosing to go down this road.
	The hon. Member for Surrey Heath said that although he welcomed my efforts in respect of naming, through the Bill, those who can apply for a European arrest warrant as a judicial authority, he felt that I was taking back with one hand as I was giving with the other. He was joined in that view by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon, who raised concerns about the transitional arrangements for the Schengen information system.

John Burnett: All that I said is that the issue needs to be looked at again more thoroughly, and that it will be scrutinised in the other place.

Bob Ainsworth: If the hon. Gentleman supports me, I will accept his support, but I am not sure that that is the situation.
	I turn to the reason why we intended to include the term "judicial authority" from the start, other than the existing transitional problem. As I have said, all the warrants currently on the Schengen information system were originally backed by a domestic warrant, which was cleared by a judicial authority. In order to give the concession requested, and to make the permanent situation as clear as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath wants it to be, we need that transitional arrangement—unless we are to refuse to extradite where existing warrants apply, or to provide people with an opportunity to question their validity, despite their being backed initially by judicial decisions.
	I thank my hon. Friends for their support on these issues, and I thank Members of both Opposition parties for their general tone, and for their welcome for the concessions that have been made. I am not surprised that I have been unable entirely to satisfy them, given some of the views that have been expressed. Those views were exposed by my hon. Friends in discussing amendment No. 18, for example. I ask the House to support the Government's amendments, and to reject those moved by the Opposition parties.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11
	 — 
	Passage of Time

'A person's extradition to a category 1 territory is barred by reason of the passage of time if (and only if) it appears that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him by reason of the passage of time since he is alleged to have committed the extradition offence or since he is alleged to have become unlawfully at large (as the case may be).'.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Bob Ainsworth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 5—Unconscionable delay—
	'(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State believes that the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) are satisfied in relation to a person.
	(2) The first condition is that the person's extradition is sought or will be sought under Part 1 or Part 2 in respect of an offence.
	(3) The second condition is that there has been unconscionable delay between the time when the offence for which extradition is sought was committed and the extradition request.
	(4) The Secretary of State may certify that the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) are satisfied in relation to the person.
	(5) If the Secretary of State issues a certificate under subsection (4) he may—
	(a) direct that a Part 1 warrant issued in respect of the person and in respect of the offence is not to be proceeded with, or
	(b) direct that a request for the person's extradition in respect of the offence is not to be proceeded with.
	(6) If the Secretary of State issues a certificate under subsection (4) he may order the person's discharge (instead of or in addition to giving a direction under subsection (5)).
	(7) These rules apply if the Secretary of State gives a direction under subsection (5)(a) in respect of a warrant—
	(a) if the designated authority has not issued a certificate under section 2 in respect of the warrant it must not do so;
	(b) if the person is arrested under the warrant or under section 5 there is no requirement for him to be brought before the appropriate judge and he must be discharged;
	(c) if the person is brought before the appropriate judge under section 4 or 6 the judge is no longer required to proceed or continue proceeding under sections 7 and 8;
	(d) if the extradition hearing has begun the judge is no longer required to proceed or continue proceeding under sections 10 to 25;
	(e) if the person has consented to his extradition, the judge is no longer required to order his extradition;
	(f) if an appeal to the High Court or House of Lords has been brought, the court is no longer required to hear or continue hearing the appeal;
	(g) if the person's extradition has been ordered there is no requirement for him to be extradited.
	(8) These rules apply if the Secretary of State gives a direction under subsection (5)(b) in respect of a request—
	(a) if he has not issued a certificate under section 69 in respect of the request he is no longer required to do so;
	(b) if the person is arrested under a warrant issued under section 70 or under a provisional warrant there is no requirement for him to appear or be brought before the appropriate judge and he must be discharged;
	(c) if the person appears or is brought before the appropriate judge the judge is no longer required to proceed or continue proceeding under sections 71, 73, 74 and 75;
	(d) if the extradition hearing has begun the judge is no longer required to proceed or continue proceeding under sections 77 to 88;
	(e) if the person has given his consent to his extradition to the appropriate judge, the judge is no longer required to send the case to the Secretary of State for his decision whether the person is to be extradited;
	(f) if an appeal to the High Court or House of Lords has been brought, the court is no longer required to hear or continue hearing the appeal;
	(g) if the person's extradition has been ordered there is no requirement for him to be extradited.
	(9) These must be made under the hand of the Secretary of State—
	(a) a certificate under subsection (4);
	(b) a direction under subsection (5);
	(c) an order under subsection (6).
	(10) The preceding provisions of this section apply to Scotland with these modifications—
	(a) in subsection (8)(a) for "he has" substitute "the Scottish Ministers have" and for "he is" substitute "they are";
	(b) in subsection (8)(e) for "Secretary of State for his" substitute "Scottish Ministers for their".
	(11) In subsection (2) the reference to an enactment includes an enactment comprised in or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament'.
	New clause 8—Passage of time—
	'A person's extradition to a category 1 territory is barred by reason of the passage of time if it appears it would be unjust or oppressive or not proportional in all the circumstances to extradite him by reason of the passage of time since he is alleged to have committed the extradition offence or since he is alleged to have become unlawfully at large (as the case may be).'.
	New clause 9—Referral of Part 1 warrant to Secretary of State—
	'.(1) Where a Part 1 warrant has been issued in connection with conduct which would not constitute an offence under the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom, that warrant must be referred to the Secretary of State, who must make a decision separate to any decision of the appropriate judge as to whether extradition to the requesting country would be proper in all the circumstances.
	(2) The Secretary of State must make an annual report to both Houses of Parliament on the cases in which he has exercised his discretion as set out in subsection (1) above and the reasons for the exercise of his discretion in each case.'.
	New clause 19—Injustice and oppression—
	'.—A person's extradition to a category 2 territory is barred if it appears that because the accusation against him is not made in good faith in the interests of justice it would, having regard to all the circumstances, be unjust or oppressive to return him.'.
	Government amendment No. 45.
	Amendment No. 23, in page 6, line 19 [Clause 11], at end insert—
	'( ) passage of time;'.
	Government amendments Nos. 47, 49, 51 and 52.
	Amendment No. 5, in page 30, line 38 [Clause 63], leave out
	'12 months'
	and insert
	'3 years'.
	Amendment No. 91, in page 40, line 35 [Clause 78], at end insert—
	';—
	(e) injustice and oppression'.
	Government amendment No. 74.

Bob Ainsworth: This list of amendments is not quite so extensive, but there are still some issues to deal with, and I shall take the least controversial first. Government amendments Nos. 49, 51, 52 and 74 relate to the speciality waiver and further extradition to a category 1 territory. Under the Bill as drafted, the UK was able to adopt a higher position on speciality, which means that we could agree on a reciprocal basis with a part 1 extradition partner that they, and we, can, after extradition, presume our consent to the person being prosecuted for offences committed before extradition took place. However, grave concerns were expressed about this issue, and we listened to the worries expressed by members of the Standing Committee, and of the Home Affairs Committee. We have therefore decided that the reference to the use of the higher position on speciality and re-extradition should be removed from the Bill, and these amendments achieve that aim.
	Government amendment No. 47 is a purely technical amendment. It takes account of the possibility that such conduct might not constitute a criminal offence in the UK. In such circumstances, the district judge is required to apply the test of assuming that the conduct is contrary to UK law, and of then establishing whether the rule of double jeopardy prevents extradition.
	I turn to perhaps meatier issues: the passage of time bar to extradition, Government new clause 11 and Government amendment No. 45, and new clause 8 and its consequential amendment. The Government amendments duplicate the bar to extradition already contained in part 2 of the Bill. We made that change in the light of concerns expressed during consultation on the draft Bill, and in Standing Committee. Where extradition would be unjust or oppressive, as a result of the amount of time that has elapsed, it would in any case be prevented under the Bill's provisions on human rights. However, we have listened to the arguments and see no harm in giving the judge the explicit direction to consider the question of the passage of time. I hope that Opposition Members will be happy to accept the proposed change.
	New clause 5 would give the Secretary of State the power to intervene in any case where there had been an unconscionable delay. I am not quite sure what Opposition Members believe the Secretary of State could bring to resolving such an issue, or how he could make a decision on unconscionable delay that contradicted the district judge. That judge's decisions are already subject to appeal to the High Court and, on points of law, to the House of Lords, so why add the Secretary of State to the process? That would open up the avenue for the legal challenge and judicial review, which would delay the proceedings. I hope that Opposition Members will accept that that the new clause is unnecessary, especially when we are including in the Bill the requirement for the district judge to consider the passage of time directly.
	On new clause 9, the Opposition present us with an opportunity to say that, if the crime for which the person is requested is not an offence in the UK, the Secretary of State should decide whether that extradition would be proper. I am not sure exactly what that means. A warrant would be issued by a body that we recognise—and have recognised for some time—for extradition purposes, and certified by our central authority, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, for an offence committed in a requesting state that is punishable in that state by at least the threshold amount. The Home Secretary, we are told, should decide whether that is proper. I look forward to hearing Opposition Members explain how the Secretary of State should go about deciding whether the decisions taken by the judicial authority of one of our European partners are proper.

David Cameron: I do not want to pre-empt my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), but the Minister might like to ask any one of the Labour members of the Select Committee who voted for the report and in favour of a specific clause that was similar to the new clause. It would give the Home Secretary a backstop power, in cases in which the crime in question was not an offence in the UK, to do precisely what the new clause suggests.

Bob Ainsworth: Members of the Select Committee must speak for themselves, but I am not sure that they were seeking to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests. I can speak only to the new clause tabled by Opposition Members. I would be interested to hear—I did not hear it in the hon. Gentleman's intervention—how the Secretary of State is to decide whether the decision, say, of a French magistrate, to request extradition was proper. I may have gone to a different school from the hon. Gentleman's, but I do not see how he could get his head around that problem. Even if he could, any decision taken would be subject to judicial review and we would be left with appeals and delays—precisely what we are trying to avoid.
	If people from another EU country came here and broke our law, would we expect that country to put them on trial? The fact that the conduct in question was not contrary to the law of their home country would be no excuse. How would we feel about a French Minister deciding whether our request was proper? I ask Opposition Members to view the problem in reverse perspective and think more about the consequences of what they are proposing.
	The second limb of new clause 9 requires the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the operation of the legislation. We do not believe that the Home Secretary should perform the role conferred on him by the Opposition in this new clause; nor do we see any need for an annual report. Home Office Ministers are answerable to Parliament and have to answer questions on the operation of extradition and other legislation—including details of the number of cases and the average time taken to process them. I see no reason for a formal annual report. No such requirement obtains in existing legislation and I see no reason to move in that direction.
	Amendment No. 5 is designed to limit the removal of dual criminality to offences attracting a three-year sentence, rather than a one-year sentence, as the Bill currently provides. The basic threshold for extradition that has operated for many years is set at 12 months, and we do not believe that it would be sensible to set a different threshold for the application of the dual criminality role. To do so would be a recipe for confusion. More than that, if hon. Gentlemen take the view that dual criminality is so important and necessary to prevent injustice when dealing with requests from another EU country—not a view that the Government share—why should that safeguard apply only to offences attracting a penalty of between one and three years, but not to more serious offences for which the person concerned potentially faces a longer period in prison? It would be illogical to impose a dual criminality requirement at the lower end of the offence scale, but not to impose such a requirement at the upper end.
	Secondly, I do not see why the UK's approach, in giving effect to European Union instruments, should always be characterised by doing the bare minimum necessary to comply, but I doubt whether many Opposition Members would agree. We have led on mutual recognition and we should seek to set an example to others. Several UK offences have no parallel in other European states, so there would be clear advantages for the UK and for the victims of crime here if other EU member states chose to go beyond the framework decision in respect of dual criminality.
	I shall now deal with Liberal Democrat new clause 19 and consequential amendment No. 91, which would add a further specific bar to extradition. I support the motives behind the amendments: we should not countenance extradition in circumstances in which it would be unjust or oppressive because the accusation has not been made in good faith. However, the Bill requires no such enhancement. The bars already included in part 2, under clause 78, cover double jeopardy, extraneous considerations, passage of time and hostage taking. It is important also to remember that the whole Bill has the protections of the European convention on human rights firmly enshrined in it.
	Clause 80, "Extraneous considerations", specifically covers where the request has been made for the purpose of punishing the person on the grounds of
	"race, religion, nationality or political opinions."
	Extradition is barred if a person would be prejudiced at trial or have his liberty restricted for any of those reasons. I do not believe that any additional requirement is necessary, and there is a risk that the amendments would be counterproductive. Their language is so subjective that they would present fugitives with a golden opportunity to block and frustrate the extradition process by creating additional grounds for appeal.
	I am sorry for taking the House's time, but I wanted to cover all the amendments in this group. I hope that Opposition Members will be prepared to withdraw the new clauses and amendments in their names.

Nick Hawkins: This substantial group of amendments is not quite as large as the previous group. I want to deal first with the Government new clauses. It is a measure of the lack of enthusiasm for the Bill among Labour Members, especially those who belong to the Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee, that the Minister has no one behind him on the Government Benches apart from his Parliamentary Private Secretary.
	Government new clause 11, and the linked Government amendment No. 45, amount to a significant concession. We welcome the Government's agreement to insert in part 1 of the Bill a "passage of time" bar to extradition, as proposed in my amendment No. 23. That is very similar to what the Government have proposed for part 2 cases.
	In Standing Committee, I explained how clients of expert extradition solicitors such as Victor, Lissack and Roscoe had suffered injustice as a result of the huge delays in other countries' legal systems. We welcome the Government's concession, and I welcome what the Minister has said today. The Government's proposal in response to the Opposition's new clause 8 and amendment No. 23, which were tabled before the Bill reached the present Report stage, and therefore before the Government concession was announced. We are of course delighted that the Government have been converted to our point of view, if a little on the late side.
	The Bill should not be retrospective. New clause 2 was not selected for debate, but we hope that the other place will reconsider the issue of retrospection.
	Our new clause 5 deals with unconscionable delay. We hope that the Government will continue to consider, in another place and more generally, whether that new clause's wording would be of additional assistance to clarify matters further, given the bad experience that expert extradition lawyers have had.
	We also hope that a de minimis provision will be inserted in the Bill in another place and, although new clause 7 was not selected for debate, that trivial matters will be excluded from the Bill.
	New clause 9 deals with the referral of part 1 warrants to the Secretary of State. It is an important matter, and I can tell the Minister that, if necessary, we will press it to a vote. We have made it clear repeatedly that one of the Opposition's main objections to the new European arrest warrant machinery, and to the framework list that the Government have signed up to, is that many offences are listed that are not offences under UK law. Some, such as xenophobia and computer-related crime, are vague and undefined.
	The prospect is that UK citizens could be arrested here, at the request of a foreign authority, and shipped off abroad. They would not have the right to ask a UK court to test the matter. That is especially important in connection with undefined and vague categories such as xenophobia, and catch-all categories such as computer-related crime.
	New clause 9 would introduce the safeguard that the matter would have to be brought back to the Secretary of State, and that Parliament would receive an annual report. That would mean that there would be clear parliamentary scrutiny. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) made a well judged intervention on the Minister a few minutes ago when he made the point that the Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee had called for just such a backstop. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that the new clause is not necessary and to ask how the Secretary of State would exercise the powers.
	We in this House are familiar with legislation that give Secretaries of State backstop powers. Given what the present Home Secretary has said about judges—the right hon. Gentleman claims that they do not operate legislation in the way that he intended, and says that judges should take note of what Parliament intended—I should have thought that he of all people would recognise that he needs the long-stop that a reserve power represents. Opposition Members strongly believe that there should be a regular report to Parliament, so that the massive change that the Government are introducing can be checked on annually by Parliament.
	Given the Home Secretary's very public anger about the way in which judges have stopped him doing what he wants, we hope that a scrutiny power for the Home Secretary will find favour. If the Minister is not empowered to say as much today, we hope that the debate in another place will force the Government to think again and give UK citizens the protection that they need.
	I stress that it would be even better if all cases could be looked at by a UK court before a British citizen is extradited for something that is not a crime in UK law. That is especially important after some of the issues raised by the Pinochet case. The danger is that another state could seek the extradition of Ministers—in the current Government, or in past or future Governments—in the same way as a Spanish magistrate sought to extradite Pinochet. Ministers may need to consider that possibility in connection with the current action in Iraq, or in connection with other international decisions. Reference was made in Committee to the concern about decisions made with regard to the bombing in Kosovo. Some people outside the House said that the decision was not an appropriate one for Ministers to take.
	The Minister must accept that the issue is serious. There is no doubt that it will be examined in another place. It cannot be dismissed.
	New clause 19, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, offers another sort of safeguard in these matters. Although our new clause 6 was not selected for debate, the issue remains important. I am sure that many people in another place with senior experience in government or in the law will share our concerns. We understand what the Liberal Democrats are doing with new clause 19, and in general we share their concerns. New clause 19 could be a helpful further safeguard. In the future, if a far-left or fundamentalist Government were to take power in Turkey, say—if it was an EU member by then—or in Italy, and if that Government were to seek the extradition of the UK Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary of the day, Conservative Members would be able to say that we warned the Government that that could happen. They would be able to say that it was because the present Home Secretary failed to introduce a political reasons exception to this Bill, as recommended on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). The Bill needs a reserve power so that a future Home Secretary can have a fall-back position that will allow him to decide that extradition is not appropriate in certain cases.
	We do not agree with the list of offences to which the Government signed up in the framework decision, but we entirely understand the view put forward by the Chairman of the Select Committee, who is not able to be with us at present. He proposed an amendment that would have put the whole list on the face of the Bill. The Opposition might have proposed that ourselves if the list had been better, but our concern about the nature of some offences on the list means that that would not have been appropriate. However, the principle remains, and we shall come back to it in connection with a later group of amendments.
	Government amendment No. 47 is a technical amendment on double jeopardy, as the Minister made clear. It mirrors clause 14 and takes account of the possibility that the conduct complained of may not constitute a criminal offence in the UK. The Minister has made it clear that the Government acknowledge that possibility.
	Government amendments Nos. 49, 51, 52 and 74 represent a significant concession to the opinions expressed by us and by the Liberal Democrats in Committee, and by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, in relation to speciality waiver and re-extradition. We do not want other countries to able to assume that they have the UK's consent. I welcome the Government's concession, although it was clear from the Minister's letter to me that it was made somewhat reluctantly. I will not go so far as to say that it was made grudgingly, but it was not made as willingly as some of the others.
	Amendment No. 5, to which I am delighted that the hon. Members for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) have added their names, would reintroduce the protection for which the Home Affairs Committee also called—namely, that the offences covered in clause 63 should be only those carrying three years' imprisonment, not 12 months. I remind the Minister that the Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee used very strong language about that. It said:
	"In relation to the dual criminality requirement, we can see no justification for eroding the basic level of protection provided by the framework decision".
	It went on to say:
	"The framework decision requires the UK to do so only in relation to offences with a maximum penalty of at least 3 years and we are dismayed that the Home Office is seeking to do so".
	Amendment No. 91, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, seeks to introduce an "injustice and oppression" safeguard. We do not disagree with that, although it may not go as far as our suggestion of a political reasons safeguard.
	Although I have tried to be brief in summarising our responses to these matters and in speaking to our new clause, I should stress that my brevity does not suggest any lack of enthusiasm. These are important issues that will be taken seriously in another place, and I shall certainly want to press the new clause to division.

John Burnett: I have already said that we welcome the concession on speciality, and we also welcome the passage of time amendment tabled by the Government.
	New clause 9 proposes important safeguards that we support. The Bill contains many offences that are not offences in the United Kingdom. We have not discussed swindling: if I bought a car from the Minister for £1,000 knowing that I could sell it to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) for £2,000 and then did so, would I be swindling the Minister? Perhaps I would, but that is the basis on which business is done throughout this country. That might seem to be a facile example, but it goes to the core of the entire definition. These offences are nebulous and uncertain. We believe that there should be safeguards, so we support the new clause.

David Cameron: As I said in my intervention on the Minister, I support new clause 9 because it is very close to what the Home Affairs Committee recommended as a backstop power for the Home Secretary. One of the objections made to us was that it may be contrary to the European arrest warrant and therefore out of order. As a good European, will the hon. Gentleman reflect on that possibility and give his view?
	Mr. Burnett: In Committee, the Minister cursed his misfortune in having drawn the two most Eurosceptical Liberal Democrat Members—[Interruption.] I had better make that figure three, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is here, although he did not serve on the Committee. I believe in a Europe of nation states—a partnership—and I do not want to see foisted on our judicial system matters that are nebulous, uncertain and unfair to our own people or to people abroad.
	I am delighted that we have the support of Conservative Members on new clause 19. The second head of injustice and oppression is not new—it is taken directly from section 11(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 1989 and appeared in all earlier extradition legislation. The Bill has adopted the cause of injustice and oppression arising out of the passage of time, which I welcome, and has rejected the
	"accusation not in good faith in the interests of justice"
	test in section 11(3)(c) of the 1989 Act. I refer to the case of Saifi v. the governor of Brixton prison, which demonstrated that in the absence of a discretion for the Secretary of State to refuse extradition—that is, to act as a long stop to prevent injustice in exceptional cases—grave injustice may occur, which is not avoided by the application of the Human Rights Act 1998. In another case—the Murat Callis case, which was a Turkish case—the court discharged the accused on the ground that the accusations were not made in good faith in the interests of justice, but were made as a means of blackmail. While the principle of mutual recognition must be recognised in respect of category 1 countries that are party to the European Union, it does not fall to be recognised in respect of category 2 countries. The Minister said that he supports the underlying aims of the new clause. He does not, of course, believe that there should be injustice or oppression. As I said, however, it is no good the Minister falling back on human rights protections, because those are not available.
	I want to say a few words about the change in the threshold from 12 months to three years proposed in amendment No. 5. The European arrest warrant removes the dual criminality requirement for 32 offences where those are punishable in the issuing state by a custodial sentence or detention order for a maximum period of at least three years. Clause 62(3)(c) reduces that to 12 months. The Government have provided no justification for the inroad into the protection offered at EU level. We should maintain the threshold at three years, which would reduce the risk of warrants being issued other than for the most serious offences in respect of which it has been decided that dual criminality is not required.
	On amendment No. 91, a person's extradition to a category 2 territory is barred if it appears that because the accusation against him is not made in good faith in the interests of justice it would, having regard to all the circumstances, be unjust or oppressive to return him. That is an important principle, and the House should consider it so.

Andrew Rosindell: I rise to support the amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, but also to defend the liberties of my constituents, as all hon. Members must do. I am concerned about the Bill, and I want particularly to address the European arrest warrant.
	Although I would be the last person to want criminals from other countries to remain in the United Kingdom, and would prefer them to be punished in their native lands, I am concerned that the Government are not responding through the Bill to a genuine problem but are pandering to the wishes of Europe—not an uncommon occurrence with this Government, I am sad to say. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the Bill's provisions relating to the European arrest warrant. They would allow for British citizens to be extradited to other European Union nations for crimes that are not recognised in the United Kingdom, and with only limited UK legal hearings. It is particularly worrying that certain crimes in other European countries—especially those relating to so-called xenophobia and racism, and to computer-related crime—are exceptionally difficult to define and pinpoint accurately.
	Surely it is unthinkable that any British Government should lay British citizens open to arrest for breaking laws that are not clearly definable. Were this Bill to be passed, an Englishman—or, of course, a Scotsman or a Welshman—who had perhaps done nothing wrong, or done anything that any right-thinking person in this country would condemn him for, or even anything that could be considered a criminal offence, could not feel secure in his own country.

Bob Ainsworth: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that, when an Englishman is, for example, in Germany, he should obey German law or English law while he is there?

Andrew Rosindell: Of course I believe that any person in any country should obey the laws of that country. I believe most strongly of all, however, that no British citizen should be subjected to the laws of other countries while they are in this country. That is completely wrong.
	I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who, alongside the directors of the Democracy Movement and Liberty, presented a petition on this issue to Downing street in November. The Bill will achieve an increase in the bureaucracy involved in extradition, at the cost of proper checks. What it needs to do is to tackle the real criminals who are a serious danger to the British national interest and to catch and deal with terrorists while protecting the innocent from European pettiness.
	The European arrest warrant represents an assault on civil liberties in the United Kingdom that will be potentially devastating for British people who fall victim unintentionally to committing ambiguous crimes abroad. It will open the floodgates for British citizens to suffer in foreign prisons and under foreign judicial systems that do not share our own standards and values. I urge hon. Members to reject it.

David Cameron: It is with great pleasure that I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell), who has made a powerful case about the dangers of removing the protection of dual criminality. I rise to speak specifically in support of new clause 9, which would put into law the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee—I am pleased to see its Chairman in his place—to give a backstop power to the Home Secretary in cases in which extradition was being sought for something that was not a crime in this country.
	The Minister asked, when I intervened on him, how the Home Secretary could be asked to designate a request as being "proper." That is the word in the new clause. I did not draft it, and I have to say that I prefer the Select Committee's carefully drafted recommendation about the backstop power. I will try to defend the proposal, however, and I want to make two points to the Minister. First, the Home Secretary has a role in extradition right now. He has to decide in many cases whether someone should be extradited, and whether it is proper to do so. All that we are saying is that, under the European arrest warrant, if a person were accused of something that was not a crime in this country, the Home Secretary should have a backstop power to say whether it was proper or not. Secondly, we are in new territory here. Never before have we given up the dual criminality protection, so why not give a backstop power to the Home Secretary?
	The backstop power proposed in new clause 9 is important because I believe that we are making a great mistake in getting rid of the protection of dual criminality. I shall give a simple example, so that we all know where we stand. Let us say that one of our constituents goes off to Spain, then returns to the United Kingdom and is accused of committing an offence. Under the Bill, so long as the arrest warrant had been properly filled out, that person would be returned to Spain. At no time would it be asked whether the offence that he was alleged to have committed was a crime in this country.
	I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee for this Bill, but I know that the proponents of the European arrest warrant say that we must try to give them a good example of a case that would be affected in the way that I have described. Because we have the protection of dual criminality, I have to admit that it is difficult to point to a good case. Perhaps I can ask the Minister what he thinks of the point.
	Other hon. Members have identified the problem of the very vague 32 categories, one of which is "racism and xenophobia". Not a lot of people know this—as Michael Caine might say—but in Finland, under the category of racism and xenophobia, warmongering is an offence. I shall share with the House what someone would have to do in Finland to be accused of warmongering. The Home Affairs Committee report states:
	"It is an offence, if, during an ongoing or imminent military or international political crisis, for the purpose of causing Finland to be at war with the target of that military operation, to:
	—publicly disseminate statements or other propaganda intended to turn the public opinion in favour of the carrying out of offensives".
	Unless I have got it wrong, anyone who, for example, supports military action in the Gulf against Iraq and who travels to Finland and makes the case that the Finns—who, after all, may soon be part of a common European security and defence policy—should join the coalition, would be committing an offence. Suddenly, that could be something for which someone could be extradited. I would not recommend that either the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister should rush to visit Finland if they are going to talk about what is going on in the Gulf. I see the Minister laughing, and I admit that it is quite funny. I did not know that that was Finnish law until recently.

Boris Johnson: Will my hon. Friend consider this further possibility? Were someone in Finland to access the Downing street website and read the many arguments for war that it puts forward, it might be possible for an alert judge or prosecuting magistrate in Finland to extradite the Prime Minister for warmongering.

David Cameron: Absolutely. We have only to look at the Downing street website to see many statements in support of military action. They could be taken as an attempt to encourage the brave and plucky Finns to join us in the Gulf.
	I observed that the Minister was laughing at that example, but the problem is that the Bill is removing dual criminality as a protection. It is an important safeguard that people in this country have had for years. All that our modest new clause 9 proposes is to give a backstop power to the Home Secretary. I am sure that in most cases he would say, "It is fine. The arrest warrant has been filled out, and it can go ahead. This is clearly an offence." However, we would give him a backstop power for cases in which there was no dual criminality, so that he could say, "Hold on a second. This should not happen."
	Proponents of the European arrest warrant always ask why someone should be protected just because they have managed to cross a border. They have been in Germany, Spain or Portugal, so why should they suddenly have protection when they get back to good old Blighty? My answer would be that our legal system is here to protect our citizens, and that that protection should be given up only if we can really trust the legal systems of other states. It is one thing to do that, as we have done in extradition cases for many years, when a crime that we recognise has been committed. It is quite another thing to give up that protection if we do not recognise the crime. This whole question turns on whether we trust other member states' criminal justice systems.
	The case of the plane spotters in Greece has been mentioned several times. It is not directly relevant to the EU arrest warrant because they were arrested in Greece and did not make it back to the UK. However, it showed people in this country that one could be held in prison in Greece for weeks on end before even being charged, let alone tried. That is what shocked so many people in the UK: those people had not even been charged, yet they were languishing in a Greek jail.
	My argument does not rely merely on one case, however. There are four vital objections to the removal of the protection of dual criminality. I shall deal with them briefly. First, we do not know for certain which offences will be covered by the EU arrest warrant. As I said earlier, the 32 categories include some extremely vague offences, such as xenophobia. We do not have a detailed definition of the offences that will fall into each of those categories in each member state. The Home Office told the Home Affairs Committee that it did not have detailed definitions of offences in the criminal justice systems of other EU member states. The Home Office cannot tell us for which specific offences we might be in danger of extradition.
	Secondly, the 32 categories do not appear in the Bill. When the Select Committee asked the Home Office why that was so, the response was that article 2.2 of the framework decision allowed for the list to be amended. We have thus been told that new classes of offence and extra offences could be added without proper parliamentary scrutiny. We are certainly not discussing them today. As those new classes of vague offences are added, we will not know which crimes fall within them. The Government rejected the Committee's recommendation to import the list of 32 offences directly into the Bill. Their response stated only that, although they do not know of any plans to amend the list of 32 offences, they believe that they must retain the flexibility to deal with any such changes.
	Do the Government want to amend the number of categories or not? The Select Committee's response to the Government was clear, and I could not agree more: the UK's domestic law should be clear in the future Act. Citizens should not have to refer to the EU document "sitting behind" the Bill in order to know what the law is. We should know about the laws that we are passing.
	My third objection is that the situation is not static. Individual countries can add extra offences in each of the 32 categories—[Interruption.] I think that the Minister said "So can we". Even if he can tell us about every offence under each of the categories, including Finnish warmongering, he cannot reassure us that Governments will not create new offences in future. The protection of dual criminality would not exist for any of them.
	My final objection is that countries joining the EU could automatically be designated category 1 countries and therefore be part of the European arrest warrant system. In fact, there is no restriction on any country being designated category 1—it does not have to be a member of the EU. The Government said that they do not intend to designate other countries as category 1, but they seem to be retaining that possibility. Their reason for rejecting the Select Committee's recommendation was that they required flexibility to be able to designate other countries as category 1, so there is no reassurance there.
	Countries that join the EU or that become subject to the European arrest warrant can decide on their own interpretation of the 32 categories. They can decide which offences fall under them and add other offences in future.
	In summary, what that means for our constituents is that getting rid of dual criminality is no small thing. The Minister is not saying, "Here is a small list of offences in a small number of countries. They will not change and all I ask is that you trust their criminal justice systems in those limited cases." He is not saying that at all. In effect, he is saying, "Here is a list of 32 vague categories of offence but I cannot tell you which crimes will be included in them, nor can I tell you which new categories will be added in future. I cannot tell you which new offences will be added to those categories and I cannot tell you what countries joining the EU in future will do". There are no guarantees whatever.
	To put the matter in tabloid form, the Minister is not telling us to trust the current Greek, Portuguese or Spanish criminal justice systems. Instead, he is saying that we must trust any criminal justice system of any present or future EU country not as it is today but as it may be decades in the future.
	That is why we need a safeguard. New clause 9 is modest, and I can see no objection to it. We are asking only that the Home Secretary be allowed to decide in cases in which the offence is not a crime in this country. We should give him that backstop power. Will the Minister explain what is wrong with that?
	I can see only two possible objections. The first is that such a role is not appropriate for the Home Secretary—perhaps because he is too busy. I cannot believe that. Only a few cases would be involved. The Home Secretary should appoint another Minister to replace the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). That would reduce the workload—[Interruption.] I am trying to help the Minister to have a fulfilling life. The Home Secretary has played a role in extradition for decades, so that cannot be an objection. As I said, there would be only a few cases in which people were subject to extradition for an alleged crime that is not an offence in this country.
	The only other possible objection is the one that I raised with the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). I now know that the hon. Gentleman is a good man as well as a good European, because he supports a Europe of nation states.

John Burnett: Independent nation states.

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman gets better. Soon he will outflank me on the right.
	The other objection relates to whether the provision would be allowable under the European arrest warrant. Will the Minister tell us what legal advice he has received on that?
	The House should try to get the law right for this country. There certainly should be expeditious extradition arrangements between European countries but we should not get rid of fundamental protections. The House should include a backstop power for the Home Secretary in the Bill and then we should see what the European Court makes of it. We should not lie down meekly because Ministers signed things away in Europe without thinking them through and say that we have to go along with them with no further debate.
	I hope that we shall divide on new clause 9 and that it will receive support from both sides of the House or, at the very least, from all the members of the Home Affairs Committee.

Boris Johnson: It is with great humility that I shall try to follow the masterly summary of the arguments given by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) also spoke passionately and well. I support in every particular the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).
	It would be foolish to pretend that the Bill is objectionable in every respect. I welcome some aspects of it, such as the speeding up of some of the procedures. The Minister heard a great deal in Committee about cases such as that of Rachid Ramda who was involved in the Paris metro bombing and succeeded in spinning out his case against extradition from the UK to France for seven years. It would be a very good thing if men like him were not able to monkey around with the judicial process for so long.
	I want to focus on dual criminality, as my hon. Friends the Members for Witney and for Romford and other hon. Members have done. I can understand that we have something to gain and something to lose by getting rid of the principle of dual criminality in the case of European extradition warrants. We have heard that we would gain in cases where we wanted to extradite to this country someone who was guilty of something that we had made a crime in this country. but was not criminal conduct in another country where that person happened to be. Swindling, the age of consent and various other examples of how we might gain have been raised.
	We would have something to lose, of course, and I want to range against each other two principles of law—mutual recognition and legal certainty. In my judgment, there is an overwhelming case for preserving legal certainty, not going down the route that the Minister constantly invites us to take, which he calls mutual recognition. There is a reason for that: this is not mutual recognition, properly so-called. I said that time and again in Committee until I was virtually blue in the face.
	I had the great joy of spending five years in Brussels, reporting on the creation of the single European market, very largely brought about by Baroness Thatcher—it was in many ways a Conservative programme of extending the benefits of free trade and mutual recognition of standards and norms across the EU. Lord Cockfield, a former Conservative Cabinet Minister, who was the Commissioner responsible for the single market, pioneered the principle of mutual recognition, which is, of course, instantiated in the famous Cassis de Dijon case.
	Under the principle of mutual recognition, if the Minister manufactures sausages that contain a red dye that is approved in his constituency, but not in Germany, or the Germans do not approve of the standard of sausages that he makes because they contain too much red dye, that sausage must be—

John Burnett: Extradited.

Boris Johnson: No, not extradited. That sausage must be legally bought and consumed in Germany. The rule of mutual recognition says that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if we in this country say that the sausage is perfectly good for us and perfectly good for the Minister and made him what he is—a fine figure of a Minister—there is no reason why the Germans should not eat it too. That is mutual recognition.
	I want to tell the House in all candour that that principle can be very happily transferred to the criminal law. A moment or two's reflection will show why that is the case. It is possible throughout the Community to recognise two different types of sausage—the type that the Minister makes, in my hypothesis, and the type that the Germans want—so we could have German sausages and the Germans could have British sausages. There is a free movement of sausages—mutual recognition of sausages. It is not possible to bring that about in the criminal law.
	It is not possible simultaneously to make it legal to drive on the right and on the left in all Community countries. The Minister will start to appreciate the point that I am making. It is not possible simultaneously to have a legal age of consent at 15 and at 18 in this country, and there are variations across the Community. Therefore, what we are talking about is not mutual recognition, as it has been generally understood in building the Community.
	If anything, what we are trying to introduce by the European extradition warrant and the wrongful importing into the argument of the principle of mutual recognition is the assumption that, in any dispute between two criminal jurisdictions involving an argument about whether or not something is a crime, the higher standard will prevail; it will be assumed that that act is a crime for the purposes of extradition. That is not what is meant by mutual recognition. I am belabouring that point, and I mean to belabour it because I do not feel that it has been properly understood. I have tried to din it into the heads of Labour Members, but they have remained obstinately immune.

George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not engage in a debate about sausages, but does he believe that, if the age of consent is 18 in another European country—to use the example he gave—and people from this country went there and committed an offence, they should not be eligible for extradition?

Boris Johnson: As I said in my opening remarks, I really think—I shall come to this point again in a minute—that we have something to gain and something to lose from such extradition. There will be things that we think are criminal, that are not recognised as crimes in other countries, for which we would like to extradite people to this country, and we will lose that opportunity.

George Howarth: It is a simple question, Boris.

Boris Johnson: My answer is no. I do not think that that involves mutual recognition. The House is being asked to agree that, in any dispute between two criminal jurisdictions, it should be assumed in deciding the matter of extradition that there is criminal conduct. It may be that the country in which the person currently resides says that the conduct is not criminal but, if there is a dispute, it will be assumed for the purposes of extradition that criminal conduct has taken place. That is something different from mutual recognition, and that fact should be recognised.

Tom Harris: During the hon. Gentleman's five years of journalism in Brussels, did he obey Belgian law or English law? Is it not the height of arrogance for him to suggest—this is the conclusion of his argument—that people from this country who go abroad are bound by their native law, not by the law of that other country? In effect, that is what he is saying.

Boris Johnson: I am not going to take that criticism from the hon. Gentleman. Of course I obeyed Belgian law. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford pointed out, we should obey the law of whichever Community country we happen to be in. Of course that is what we are saying, but we are also saying that when people are in Britain, they should have the legal certainty that the laws of this country, not those of another Community country, will apply to them. The whole point is that they will be vulnerable to extradition for things that are not crimes in this country. That is the point on which we differ.
	It is perfectly clear that there is a list of 32 broad categories of offence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Witney pointed out, that list can be varied at will by the European Council on a majority vote. There is no way that we can possibly influence the changes made to those categories of crime or, indeed, to the criminal justice systems of other countries, so we are giving up our democratic right to make the law of this country.

Bob Ainsworth: To clarify the situation, the list can only be changed by unanimity. What we cannot do, however, is prevent the Belgians from changing Belgian law, or the French from changing French, law first as we will not allow them to prevent us from changing British law. If we changed British law, would we not expect people in our country to obey our new law?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to the Minister for clearing up the point about unanimity and majority voting, and I am sorry to have got that wrong just now. He makes the point well that it is up to the Belgians to vary their own criminal justice system. We will have absolutely no influence over that. The net result will be that a citizen in this country can be extradited to Belgium or to another category 1 country to face charges for something that is not a crime in this country. In my view, that is taking away the legal certainty of people whom we represent and the freedoms of people whom we were elected to serve. It is rash of us to do that, particularly when we consider how deeply at variance we currently are about one aspect of international law: we cannot agree with the French about the legal status of the action that we are taking in Iraq. There is a huge difference of opinion about the legality of that most vital international operation. How, therefore, can we expect to have consensus and harmony about a great host of minor matters, and how can we possibly expect our citizens to have any certainty about what laws apply to them as they move around the country?

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of misrepresenting the case by almost suggesting—I know that he did not intend to say this—that a citizen of this country who has never set foot outside it will somehow be subject to extradition because he has broken a law in Britain that applies in another country. That is of course not the case. Citizens of Britain who go abroad are subject to the laws of that realm, and if they commit a crime in that country, irrespective of whether it is a crime in this country, they must surely be held accountable in the country that they have freely chosen to visit. Surely that is a fundamental point.

Boris Johnson: Of course such people must be held to account, and I am not opposed to their being held to account for crimes that they may have committed in foreign countries. Of course we must respect the legal systems of other Community countries. I am simply saying that when we think that there is no crime under our laws, it should be possible for the Home Secretary—a democratically elected representative of our people—to decide that there is no case for immediate extradition. The European extradition law means immediate extradition, with no argument and no discussion. All that the Opposition are suggesting is that that very small safeguard should be built into the Bill. That seems not much to ask.

John Burnett: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point, with which I have considerable sympathy. As he knows, dual criminality is abolished for category 1 countries. For example, someone who might have broken a swindling law in another category 1 country might be completely oblivious of the fact that he has broken any law whatever and would consider himself entirely innocent. Does the Gentleman agree that in those circumstances there must be some safeguards and there should not be immediate extradition?

Boris Johnson: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who advances ever further in the hierarchy of soundness and common sense. It is miraculous what common sense Liberal Democrats in the west country show when they are up against Conservatives.
	To return to the previous intervention from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris), I am in favour of us all obeying the laws of other Community countries and taking the consequences when we get home, provided that there is dual criminality. The Gentleman should bear in mind, however, that under the Bill, as he suggests, someone might be sitting in their front room doing something on a computer—as that is envisaged in the text of the Bill—and, as I read it, it is not outside the bounds of possibility that they could be extradited without having even set foot in a foreign country. The possibility that he raises as a reductio ad absurdam is therefore not as absurdam as he suggests.
	Finally, I want to revert to the case of the Kalamata plane spotters, as the last time I did so I said that it would have been awful had they come back to Britain and been extradited on the spot. I think the Minister stood up and said, "Ha, ha! They could already be extradited, even without this extradition warrant Bill, because they were arrested under charges of espionage, and they would have had to go back." It was a good point. As I was able to say to him then, however, and as I shamelessly repeat now, the point is that under the current law the Home Secretary can decide whether to vary that warrant. It would be a small protection for our citizens to give the democratically elected Home Secretary the ultimate power to decide whether an extradition request from a European country was vexatious or improper. It is not beyond the imaginative powers of the Minister to understand how the Home Secretary, who is a very capable and intelligent man—unless the Minister is trying to tell me otherwise—could decide whether an extradition warrant was proper or not. He would simply decide whether the case had been well made and whether there was a case to answer, even if he could see no dual criminality, and then sign the case off. Installing such a small protection for the people whom we represent is the very least that we can ask of the Government.
	I do not understand why the Minister does not do that because I can imagine the headlines that will be written after the provision bites. There will come a time when he will be recognised as the author of this sad legislation. I can imagine his future embarrassment and what certain tabloid newspapers will do to him. I could write the headlines for him—maybe I will. If he has any power of reflection, I urge him to think twice and accept the amendment.

George Howarth: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), not least because my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) tells me that the hon. Gentleman has an iconic status among the young people of Liverpool. I am not entirely sure how that has arisen, but no doubt I shall gain some brownie points from my hon. Friend for speaking against the hon. Gentleman.
	I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and, to put it kindly, the logic of his argument was muddled. He seemed to advance the theory that extradition should be right and permissible only when the offence that is committed in one country is roughly the same as an offence under our criminal law, which I assume he would concede to be the principle of dual criminality. I think that that was the burden of his argument, although he might wish to correct me because he was somewhat muddled and I might have misunderstood him.
	I found it rather shocking that the hon. Gentleman made that argument, and I have two problems with it. I think that he believes that nation states have the right to decide what is right and appropriate for them. I presume that his time spent as a journalist in Brussels reinforced that view because I have heard him advance the argument in the past. If he accepts that any nation state, whether in the EU or not, has the right to make such decisions, it follows that any visitor to a nation state is bound by its law and that any visitor who commits an offence there yet manages to get home should expect to be extradited back to that country to face the music. I have no problem with the logic of that and I do not know why the hon. Gentleman, who is a great defender of nation states, cannot understand why that must be the case.

David Cameron: rose—

Boris Johnson: rose—

George Howarth: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and then the hon. Member for Henley.

David Cameron: Surely the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that we should remove the protection of dual criminality not only from EU states, but from states throughout the world.

George Howarth: No. The omission that the hon. Gentleman makes in raising that point is that all other EU states, and even to some degree the applicant countries, recognise that there is already a framework setting down some minimum standards. So, there is a distinct difference. For argument's sake, I would not say that that would be so in all countries in the world, because clearly there are some places where criminal law is not as sophisticated as that in most European states and ours.

David Cameron: rose—

George Howarth: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again, because I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Henley.

Boris Johnson: I am not, of course, saying that people should not be extradited except where dual criminality applies. No one on the Conservative Benches is saying that. The hon. Gentleman grossly misrepresents my argument. All we are saying is that when dual criminality does not apply, the Home Secretary should have the power to decide whether to go ahead with the extradition. I thought that I had made that abundantly clear.

George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman's indignation overtook my ability to make my second point, which was indeed to talk about the Home Secretary's role. I happen to have been a junior Minister at the Home Office when my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), as Home Secretary, had to study and make a decision on the Pinochet case. I shall not go into all the rights and wrongs of that, but I will make a couple of observations about the process.
	First, a cordon sanitaire had to be built around my right hon. Friend because it was properly recognised by officials that he could not be easily influenced by anything else going on and that he had to concentrate uniquely and almost single-mindedly on the arguments for the application for extradition and their merits or otherwise. Secondly—

Boris Johnson: rose—

George Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish my point, I will allow him to intervene.
	Secondly, although I had no direct or even indirect involvement in the Pinochet case, I know that my right hon. Friend had to concentrate on the legal arguments that both sides put before him. He was not acting as some superimposed arbiter of right and wrong, but deciding on the legal arguments which, in almost any other circumstance, would have fallen to a judge.

Boris Johnson: The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was in a difficult position because as a youth he had been out demonstrating against Mr. Pinochet. As far as I can remember, that was the particular difficulty that beset him. It is hard to imagine similar difficulties affecting future Home Secretaries in making such decisions. I therefore do not see why the hon. Gentleman's point invalidates the general desirability of a Home Secretary making such a final, safety, backstop judgment on whether extradition should go ahead.

George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman's point applies not only to my right hon. Friend but to almost all politicians. The truth is—and the hon. Gentleman is no exception to this rule—we all have form. Every one of us in pursuit of our political careers has taken positions on all sorts of things. If the hon. Gentleman ever found himself in a position such as the one I have described, he too would have form—not necessarily on Pinochet, but he will have made pronouncements not only in his political life but during his career in journalism. That is why it is far better for such things to be decided by judges than by those of us who find ourselves in political positions that on occasions may have quasi-judicial implications. The hon. Gentleman has not made a strong case. All the arguments go in the opposite direction, and I certainly shall not be voting for the Opposition amendments.

Bob Ainsworth: Where do I start? I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) for trying to help me bring a little clarity and logic to the debate, although that is pretty difficult.
	Let us try to unravel some of the jumbling that has gone on since the Conservative Back Benchers, joined by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), took over the debate. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon complained about the list, and someone not knowing whether or not he was committing an offence. I understand that the Gentleman is a lawyer. If he is seriously telling the House that ignorance of the law is a reason for rendering one immune to prosecution, he should stand up and say so, otherwise he should not have come to the House and spoken about someone not knowing they had committed an offence.

John Burnett: Of course, I recognise and acknowledge that ignorance of the law is not a defence against a charge. Having said that, if someone commits an offence overseas which he believes is not an offence—he believes that it is an entirely innocent act—and is then subject to extradition, surely there must be some safeguards.

Bob Ainsworth: So if a German, for example, comes to our country, breaks our law, returns to Germany and says, "But wait a minute, I didn't know I was breaking the law," he should not be sent back here to face justice.

John Burnett: rose—

Bob Ainsworth: No, I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
	That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying—there must be a safeguard that prevents that man from being returned. His ignorance of the fact that he was breaking the law ought to provide him with protection from prosecution.

Boris Johnson: The whole point, as the Minister well knows, is that ignorance of the law of one's own country is not a defence—that is indisputable. However, let us suppose that a fine, influential, upstanding Home Office Minister went to Finland and made a speech defending the behaviour of the coalition forces in the war, argued that there were good reasons for supporting military action in the Gulf, then went back to London thinking that he had done a good job, only to find that he was guilty of breaching the Finnish law on warmongering, would that Minister be wholly innocent or not on the ground that he did not know—and I bet that the Minister does not know, but perhaps he will correct me—that warmongering is an offence in Finland?

Bob Ainsworth: Let me try to deal with the issues that have been raised.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Bob Ainsworth: I shall not accept interventions for the moment, but of course I will allow hon. Members to intervene later.
	We have heard numerous contradictions, including many in the speech of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson). He said that if the age at which someone could be prosecuted as a criminal in this country was different from that in another country they should not be sent back. However, only a couple of sentences later, he agreed that when he was in Belgium he abided by Belgian law. He cannot have it all ways. The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) spoke about somebody who had committed an offence in Spain and returned to this country. That person could be extradited and, during that process, at no time would it be asked whether or not what he had done was an offence in that country.

David Cameron: No, I did not say that.

Bob Ainsworth: Wait a minute, that is what the hon. Gentleman said. If he wants to check the record, he can do so, as that is clearly what he said. I do not know whether he spoke in error.

David Cameron: rose—

Bob Ainsworth: I urge the hon. Gentleman to sit down, as I am not going to give way to him. That is what he said. If he said it in error, I accept that, but he did say it.
	That idea is being bandied around in Conservative circles, and people are beginning to believe their own propaganda. There is nothing whatsoever in the Bill that says that people can be extradited for activities in this country that are not an offence here. I wish that hon. Members would stop making that allegation because it is not true. The Bill includes a requirement that provides the legal certainty that the hon. Member for Henley asked for. The Bill contains a requirement that whether or not somebody crosses a border, people must abide by the law of the country within which they are. That applies to people who come to our country as it applies to UK citizens who go abroad. If a German, a Frenchman or a Spaniard comes to our country and breaks our—

David Cameron: Will the Minister give way?

Bob Ainsworth: Hold on for a moment.
	If that person comes to our country and breaks our law, he or she would be punished under our law while present in this country. In my view, there is no reason why they should be able to jump on a Eurostar train and for things to change all of a sudden when they get half way through the tunnel, with the result that they are not as vulnerable to being punished under our law—

Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister give way?

Bob Ainsworth: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I will give way to the hon. Member for Witney.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way.
	I think that the point that he is missing—my hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and for Henley (Mr. Johnson) have been trying to get it over to him—is that one of the real mischiefs in the Bill is the vagueness of the categories of offence. The Minister must understand that one of the reasons for our concern, which is shared by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), is that if there are vague categories that will lead to British citizens being vulnerable, that is a concern and a particular reason why there should be a modest longstop, as a Labour dominated Home Affairs Committee suggested.

Bob Ainsworth: I do not know how many more times the hon. Gentleman will say "a Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee". It is a good phrase of his own. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention because it brings me directly to the point that I want to make. He keeps saying, in the hope that it will become true, that people will be subjected to vague categories of crime. They will not.

John Burnett: Will the Minister give way?

Bob Ainsworth: Hold on for a moment.
	The warrant that requires the arrest will be clear. It will spell out the offence that has been committed as defined in the law of the jurisdiction in which the person was when they are alleged to have committed the offence. It will not use vague terminology. It will use a clear and specific allegation in French law, Spanish law or German law, stating that "this person is accused and wanted to stand trial for this offence."

David Cameron: rose—

Bob Ainsworth: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I would say that we have offences that are not recognised in other European countries. The offence in this country of incitement to racial hatred is not an offence in many other European countries. Another example is the offence of fraudulent trading. If hon. Gentlemen are saying that we should not be allowed to seek extradition for people who have broken our clear law—not a generic list, not a vague definition but our offence of fraudulent trading—because they happen to be in France or in Belgium, please let them say so and give us the reasons for so doing.

David Cameron: I want to clarify the point. The Minister was misrepresenting what I said entirely. I hope that he will give me some credit. I sit on the Home Affairs Committee and with others I spent hours producing its report. I was making the point about a constituent who went off to Spain and allegedly committed a crime in Spain. When the arrest warrant is filled out, at no time will it be asked whether the offence is an offence in this country. That is the simple point that I was making. I cannot think how the Minister can take issue with it. It is up to him to prove the case. He is the one who is taking away a safeguard that has been in the law of this country for decades. It is up to him to make his case.

Bob Ainsworth: I take issue with the hon. Gentleman because that is not what he said.

David Cameron: That is what I said.

Bob Ainsworth: It is not what the hon. Gentleman said. If I am wrong, I will apologise. We shall have a look at the record if that is what we need to do. I am not trying to disparage the hon. Gentleman.
	Let us say he says what he says he said. At no time will it be necessary to prove that the offence that was committed is an offence in this country. The accused was in Spain and committed an offence there, and the warrant will define the offence in Spanish law. What is the matter with that? Effectively, the hon. Gentleman is saying that while his constituent was in Spain, he should have been prepared to abide not by Spanish law, but by English law, and that the warrant should take account of whether the offence was an offence in English law. The person in question was not in England when he committed the offence, but in Spain. The warrant will spell out not some vague category of crime, but a specific crime in Spanish law committed in Spain. If the threshold for extradition is exceeded, yes, that person will be extraditable.
	I see no problem with that arrangement and believe that it is positive. After crimes are committed in Spain, there will be Spanish victims who are entitled to justice. When crimes are committed by other European citizens in our country, British citizens will be entitled to justice, so I see no problem with mutual recognition. I believe that it is the way forward and the direction that we need to take.
	The hon. Member for Witney asked about the position of the Prime Minister, Ministers, diplomats and all the rest of it. The Bill contains absolutely nothing that changes the position on diplomatic or state immunity, so those who currently enjoy such immunities will continue to do so under the European arrest warrant arrangements.
	I have dealt with the main point of contention in this discussion, but in order to bring a lighter note to the debate, I should like to respond to the threat of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that some fundamentalist or left-wing Government in Turkey might use the European arrest warrant to arrest me or another member of the Government and that, in that event, he would be here to say "I told you so." I do not know whether that is an indication of his confidence that he will be sitting on the Opposition Benches for many a long year to come, but I certainly hope so.
	The measure has been widely misrepresented. The generic list of offences is a mechanism by which mutual recognition is facilitated. Nobody will be extradited from one European country to another for anything other than an allegation of a clear breach of law in the other country, and hon. Gentlemen should not seek to suggest otherwise.

Nick Hawkins: I thank the Minister for again giving way. He is laying a great deal of stress on the suggestion that certain things will be made absolutely clear in the warrants if the measure becomes law, but I ask him to address the question asked by the Opposition and by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs from his own Back Benches. The Government have refused to include in the Bill the format of the arrest warrants or to accept what the Home Affairs Committee has said about including the list of very vague offences. I do not see how he can say at the Dispatch Box that he is confident about how the system will work unless he is prepared to include all the details in the Bill, as we have urged him to do.

Bob Ainsworth: I think I have said that it is extremely clear that the warrant will have to say exactly what the offence is, who issued it and whether they were an appropriate authority to do so—the Bill states that that authority will have to be a judicial authority—and that it meets the threshold in an accusation case that is required to allow extradition to be considered. If any of that information is not complete to the satisfaction of the National Criminal Intelligence Service in England or the Crown Office in Scotland, the warrant will not go forward and the case will not even be considered.
	Let me deal with the reasons for not including a minimal safeguard at the back of the Bill. We cannot do that without opening up the issue of dual criminality and the playground to which it would lead on every single case. We cannot use the backstop of the Home Secretary without any decision that he makes being open to challenge and judicial review, yet the hon. Member for Henley claims that he wants a speedier system. He says that he does not want the sort of delays that occur in our current system, but tries to reintroduce provisions that allow the sometimes appalling delays under existing legislation. The Bill is designed to avoid them.

John Burnett: We are beginning to tease an important point out of the Minister. Many hon. Members would like a clear exposition of what, in the Minister's view, a warrant will contain. Will it spell out the exact offence under legislation in the countries that seek extradition? What else will the warrant include?

Bob Ainsworth: We discussed that at some length and I talked about the matter again when introducing this group of amendments. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been able to sit through our proceedings this afternoon. The warrant will clearly state that people are sought in order to bring them to trial, give details of the law that has been allegedly broken in the jurisdiction and set out the potential penalty for breaking it. It will not refer to the generic list, which facilitates mutual recognition. The warrant will contain specific allegations. I refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 2(4) and (6). It sets out the exact requirements on the face of the warrant.
	There is therefore certainty. The hon. Member for Witney asked what I would say to my constituents. I tell them that when people from another jurisdiction come to our country, they should be subject to our law. The fact that they manage to leave the country should not render them immune to it. However, the reverse applies to our constituents. When they go abroad, they must be prepared to abide by the law of the European country that they visit. Yes, those jurisdictions can change their laws, just as we can change ours. We require people to abide by the law as it stands at the time of the alleged offence.

Boris Johnson: The Minister gave the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) an interesting answer. Surely, in the overwhelming majority of cases, a direct congruence between the offence in the other Community country and that in our law is immediately obvious. There will be genuinely no dual criminality in only a tiny minority of cases. Is it not sensible to leave those cases to the Home Secretary, acting as a longstop and a safeguard?

Bob Ainsworth: It is true that there is not an exact equivalent of an offence in British law in only a few cases. However, does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that that stops people raising the matter in every case and requiring arguments for the exact equivalent in British law? Does he not realise that that is one of the main causes of the delays in our current system?
	For the benefit of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon, let me read clause 2(4). It provides for the information that the warrant will contain. It is
	"particulars of the person's identity; . . . particulars of any other warrant issued in the category 1 territory . . . particulars of the circumstances in which the person is alleged to have committed the offence, including the conduct alleged to constitute the offence and the time and the place at which he is alleged to have committed the offence; . . . particulars of the sentence which may be imposed under the law of the category 1 territory in respect of the offence if the person is convicted of it."
	Subsection (6) says that the information is
	"particulars of the person's identity . . . particulars of the conviction . . . particulars of any other warrant issued in the category 1 territory . . . particulars of the sentence which may be imposed under the law of the category 1 territory in respect of the offence . . . particulars of the sentence which has been imposed under the law of the category 1 territory in respect of the offence".
	If the warrant does not contain those particulars, the extradition will not proceed. That has nothing to do with any vague list; a specific offence must have been committed in a category 1 country, and must be stated in the warrant.

David Cameron: The style of the European arrest warrant is given on page 47 of the Home Affairs Committee's report, which will tell the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) all that he needs to know. It is clear what the warrant will look like. What is less clear is the nature of some of the 32 categories, such as racism and xenophobia. I gave an example involving Finnish warmongering, supplied to the Home Affairs Committee by Home Office officials.
	Will the Minister give an undertaking that in years to come the Home Office will give the Home Affairs Committee and the House some guidance on laws in other countries relating to vague categories such as racism and xenophobia, so that we can at least help constituents who may get into trouble as a result of the new procedure?

Bob Ainsworth: As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath pointed out, we could attempt to trawl every jurisdiction for every piece of legislation that hits the threshold for extradition, but the Spanish, the Portuguese or the Italians might change their laws, as we might change ours. There is nothing to stop them doing that. The principle is that when we are in their jurisdictions, we are obliged to abide by the laws of those jurisdictions, just as they are obliged to abide by ours. I see nothing wrong with that.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12
	 — 
	Undertaking in Relation to Person Serving Sentence

(1) This section applies if—
	(a) the appropriate judge makes an order under section 45(6) or 47(3)(a) for a person's extradition to a category 1 territory;
	(b) the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment or another form of detention in the United Kingdom.
	(2) The judge may make the order for extradition subject to the condition that extradition is not to take place before he receives an undertaking given on behalf of the category 1 territory in terms specified by him.
	(3) The terms which may be specified by the judge in relation to a person accused in a category 1 territory of the commission of an offence include terms—
	(a) that the person be kept in custody until the conclusion of the proceedings against him for the offence and any other offence in respect of which he is permitted to be dealt with in the category 1 territory;
	(b) that the person be returned to the United Kingdom to serve the remainder of his sentence on the conclusion of those proceedings.
	(4) The terms which may be specified by the judge in relation to a person alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of an offence by a court in a category 1 territory include terms that the person be returned to the United Kingdom to serve the remainder of his sentence after serving any sentence imposed on him in the category 1 territory for—
	(a) the offence, and
	(b) any other offence in respect of which he is permitted to be dealt with in the category 1 territory.
	(5) If the judge makes an order for extradition subject to a condition under subsection (2) the required period for the purposes of sections 46(2) and 48(2) is 10 days starting with the day on which the judge receives the undertaking.'.
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 13
	 — 
	Extradition Following Deferral for Competing Claim

(1) This section applies if—
	(a) an order is made under section 45(6) or 47(3)(a) for a person to be extradited to a category 1 territory in pursuance of a Part 1 warrant;
	(b) before the person is extradited to the territory an order is made under section 43(4)(b) or 179(2)(b) for the person's extradition in pursuance of the warrant to be deferred;
	(c) the appropriate judge makes an order under section 181(3)(a) for the person's extradition in pursuance of the warrant to cease to be deferred.
	(2) The required period for the purposes of sections 46(2) and 48(2) is 10 days starting with the day on which the order under section 181(3)(a) is made.'.—
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 14
	 — 
	Person Charged with Offence in United Kingdom

(1) This section applies if at any time in the extradition hearing the judge is informed that the person is charged with an offence in the United Kingdom.
	(2) The judge must adjourn the extradition hearing until one of these occurs—
	(a) the charge is disposed of;
	(b) the charge is withdrawn;
	(c) proceedings in respect of the charge are discontinued;
	(d) an order is made for the charge to lie on the file, or in relation to Scotland, the diet is deserted pro loco et tempore.
	(3) If a sentence of imprisonment or another form of detention is imposed in respect of the offence charged, the judge may adjourn the extradition hearing until the sentence has been served.
	(4) If before he adjourns the extradition hearing under subsection (2) the judge has decided under section 78 whether the person's extradition is barred by reason of the rule against double jeopardy, the judge must decide that question again after the resumption of the hearing.'.—
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 15
	 — 
	Person Serving Sentence in United Kingdom

(1) This section applies if at any time in the extradition hearing the judge is informed that the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment or another form of detention in the United Kingdom.
	(2) The judge may adjourn the extradition hearing until the sentence has been served.'.—
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

New Clause 16
	 — 
	Service Policemen

'The Secretary of State may by order provide for any provision of this Part which applies in relation to police officers or persons arrested by police officers to apply with specified modifications in relation to service policemen or persons arrested by service policemen.'.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Bob Ainsworth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government amendments Nos. 38 and 39.
	Amendment No. 19, in page 3, line 10 [Clause 3], after second 'person', insert 'of British nationality, sworn to serve only the Crown, and'.
	Government amendments Nos. 40 to 42, 57, 58, 60, 61, 75, 78, 79, 81 and 82.

Bob Ainsworth: In its current form, the Bill provides that a European arrest warrant can be executed in this country by a police officer or designated appropriate person. That formulation already exists in legislation, but as an added safeguard—in contrast to what the Conservatives did in government—we have provided that designation orders should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
	It has been said that the use of the phrase "appropriate persons" was a means whereby we sought to disguise our wish to include foreign police officers in the powers applied in this country. Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and I stated that the term "appropriate person" was intended to cover Customs and Excise officers, service police officers and, possibly, other UK law enforcement agencies.
	Our new clause and amendments are intended to make things absolutely clear, in black and white. Presumably all Members will now accept what was the Government's intention from the start—that the powers apply to police constables, customs officers and members of other police services of our country, and not to foreign police or customs officers.

Lady Hermon: I ask the Minister to clarify one point. After the Patten reforms, the number of police officers in Northern Ireland dropped dramatically, so the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland—and, indeed, the Policing Board—are very keen to recruit police officers through secondment and lateral entry. That may well include members of the police service of the Republic of Ireland—the Garda Siochana. It would be very helpful if the Minister could confirm whether those constables, if they should come, will have the power to execute an extradition warrant?

Bob Ainsworth: I am not familiar with all the details of the Northern Ireland jurisdiction, but I was coming to the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and in doing so I should be able to clarify the point.
	I assume that the amendment seeks to achieve what we now propose to achieve, but under it no one other than a British citizen would be able to execute a European arrest warrant. Under the terms of various laws governing the police in the United Kingdom—not just in Northern Ireland—any British citizen, a citizen of the Irish Republic or a Commonwealth citizen may serve in our police force. It is not our intention to make such people second-class members of those police forces, and our amendment would not have that effect. They will be members of the British police force, and they will be able to issue extradition arrest warrants in the same way as they can issue domestic ones.
	I hope that new clause 11 fits with the true intention of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who did not want to go further by ruling out people from Commonwealth or Republic of Ireland backgrounds who were serving in the British police force. Our provision will not rule them out, but his would have done so, and I hope that he can accept our solution.

Nick Hawkins: I can deal with this group of amendments fairly quickly. As the Minister said, the important issue is Government new clause 16 and the linked Government amendments: Nos. 38 to 42, 57, 58, 60, 61, 75, 78, 79, 81 and 82. As the Minister has made clear, the Government have made a significant concession in the light of our comments, supported by the Liberal Democrats, in Committee. That also reflects the very strong view of the Home Affairs Committee that the Government's original proposal—that "an appropriate person" should execute a European arrest warrant—was too wide. As the Minister said, he sought to reassure us in Committee, but we wanted the Bill to make the position absolutely clear. I am therefore very pleased that we succeeded in persuading the Minister and his advisers that it would be sensible to put it beyond doubt that only police officers, constables, armed forces' police and Customs and Excise personnel can execute a European arrest warrant.
	Although we welcome the Government's provision, I should mention in passing that we have some remaining concerns about the exact role to be undertaken by Customs and Excise in the light, as the Minister will be aware, of the collapse of recent cases involving Customs and Excise on such matters as bonded warehouses. The Minister is aware of issues that have been raised recently in this Chamber, and of the fact that there is an ongoing inquiry into the collapse of those cases. [Interruption.] The Gentleman nodded when I first raised this point, and, helpfully, he does so again. I hope that he will continue to keep the matter under review, because in our view there is much need for care if greater powers are to be used by Customs and Excise officials, given the very strong views expressed by the judge when those cases collapsed. We will continue to scrutinise this issue, and in our view reforms may well be required. This House will have another opportunity to debate this issue when the independent reports on the collapsed trials are received. [Interruption.] It is again very helpful to note the Minister's assent.
	The Minister referred briefly to the fact that amendment No. 19 seeks to bring in a requirement to a similar effect. However, as he rightly pointed out, we tabled our amendment before the Government tabled theirs. We were seeking to move in the same direction, and I understand the Minister's point about problems in cases, for example, in which someone from the Commonwealth is already serving in our police force. The Minister was kind enough to recognise that we were aiming at the same target and his amendments fulfil our request in Committee. I welcome that, with the proviso that I have mentioned.

John Burnett: I do not want to go over ground that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has already covered. I welcome these sensible amendments, which were supported by the official Opposition, Liberal Democrats and the Home Affairs Committee. On the matter of customs and the bonded warehouse cases, the Treasury has experienced a massive loss of revenue, and it is no bad thing that customs prosecutions will now come under the aegis of the Attorney-General's Department.

Bob Ainsworth: Customs will have only those powers within its remit to issue European arrest warrants. I can also confirm for the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) that if the individuals whom she mentioned have the powers of a constable while they are serving in the Police Service of Northern Ireland, they will also have the powers to use the European arrest warrant in the same way as other constables in that service.

Lady Hermon: I am pleased that the Opposition are willing to withdraw their amendment on that issue. The problem is not only the nationality issue, but the words that were used in amendment No. 19—
	"sworn to serve only the Crown".
	That would not reflect the new oath taken by new members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, so it would effectively disqualify new members of the service from executing extradition warrants, no matter what nationality they were.

Bob Ainsworth: In the interests of cross-party co-operation, I can confirm on behalf of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that that was not his intention. He was trying to achieve what the Government amendment will achieve and he is satisfied with our proposal—in this regard, if not in others.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 17
	 — 
	Appeal Against Grant of Bail

(1) Section 1 of the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993 (c.26) (prosecution right of appeal against grant of bail) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (1) insert—
	"(1A) Where a magistrates' court grants bail to a person in connection with extradition proceedings, the prosecution may appeal to a judge of the Crown Court against the granting of bail."
	(3) In subsection (3) for "Such an appeal" substitute "An appeal under subsection (1) or (1A)".
	(4) In subsection (4)—
	(a) after subsection (1) insert "or (1A)";
	(b) for "magistrates' court" substitute "court which has granted bail";
	(c) omit "such".
	(5) In subsection (5) for "magistrates' court" substitute "court which has granted bail".
	(6) In subsection (6) for "magistrates' court" substitute "court which has granted bail"
	(7) In subsection (8)—
	(a) after "subsection (1)" insert "or (1A)";
	(b) omit "magistrates'".
	(8) In subsection (10)(b) for "reference in subsection (5) above to remand in custody is" substitute "references in subsections (6) and (9) above to remand in custody are".
	(9) After subsection (11) insert—
	"(12) In this section—
	"court" in relation to extradition proceedings includes a judge of a court or a justice of the peace;
	"extradition proceedings" means proceedings under the Extradition Act 2003;
	"prosecution" in relation to extradition proceedings means the person acting on behalf of the territory to which extradition is sought."'.
	—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 18
	 — 
	Remand to Local Authority Accommodation

(1) Section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (remand to local authority accommodation) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (11).
	(2) In subsection (1) after "following provisions of this section" insert "(except subsection (1A))".
	(3) After subsection (1) insert—
	"(1A) Where a court remands a child or young person in connection with extradition proceedings and he is not released on bail the remand shall be to local authority accommodation."
	(4) In subsection (4) after "subsections (5)" insert ", (5ZA)".
	(5) In subsection (5) after "security requirement" insert "in relation to a person remanded in accordance with subsection (1) above".
	(6) After subsection (5) insert—
	"(5ZA) A court shall not impose a security requirement in relation to a person remanded in accordance with subsection (1A) above unless—
	(a) he has attained the age of twelve and is of a prescribed description;
	(b) one or both of the conditions set out in subsection (5ZB) below is satisfied; and
	(c) the condition set out in subsection (5AA) below is satisfied.
	(5ZB) The conditions mentioned in subsection (5ZA)(b) above are—
	(a) that the conduct constituting the offence to which the extradition proceedings relate would if committed in the United Kingdom constitute an offence punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment for a term of fourteen years or more;
	(b) that the person has previously absconded from the extradition proceedings or from proceedings in the United Kingdom or the requesting territory which relate to the conduct constituting the offence to which the extradition proceedings relate.
	(5ZC) For the purposes of subsection (5ZB) above a person has absconded from proceedings if in relation to those proceedings—
	(a) he has been released subject to a requirement to surrender to custody at a particular time and he has failed to surrender to custody at that time, or
	(b) he has surrendered into the custody of a court and he has at any time absented himself from the court without its leave."
	(7) In subsection (5AA) for "subsection (5)" substitute "subsections (5) and (5ZA)".
	(8) In subsection (12) for the definition of "relevant court" substitute—
	""relevant court"—in relation to a person remanded to local authority accommodation under subsection (1) above, means the court by which he was so remanded, or any magistrates' court having jurisdiction in the place where he is for the time being; in relation to a person remanded to local authority accommodation under subsection (1A) above, means the court by which he was so remanded."
	(9) In subsection (12) in the appropriate places insert—
	""extradition proceedings" means proceedings under the Extradition Act 2003;";
	""requesting territory" means the territory to which a person's extradition is sought in extradition proceedings;".
	(10) In section 98(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (modifications of section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 in relation to 15 and 16 year old boys) after paragraph (b) insert "; and
	(c) is not remanded in connection with proceedings under the Extradition Act 2003.".'.
	—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Terrorism

'.— "Terrorism" has the meaning given by section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c.11).'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment No. 89, in page 1 [Clause 1], leave out line 6 and insert
	'of the European Union that have abolished the death penalty in all circumstances'.
	Amendment No. 16, in page 1, line 7 [Clause 1], leave out from 'to' to end of line 8 and insert,
	'territories that are party to the European Convention on Human Rights'.
	Amendment No. 90, in page 1, line 7 [Clause 1], leave out from second 'territories' to end of line 8 and insert
	'of the European Union that have abolished the death penalty in all circumstances'.
	Amendment No. 24, in page 1, line 8 [Clause 1], at end add—
	'(3) A territory may not be designated for the purposes of this Part unless that territory is—
	(a) a signatory to the European framework decision, or
	(b) a signatory to the convention implementing the Schengen agreement.'.
	Government amendment Nos. 34, 46 and 48.
	Amendment No. 1, in page 30, line 34 [Clause 63], leave out
	'falls within the European framework list'
	and insert
	'constitutes terrorism'.
	Amendment No. 2, in page 32, line 19 [Clause 64], leave out
	'falls within the European framework list'
	and insert
	'constitutes terrorism'.
	Amendment No. 3, in page 33 [Clause 65], leave out lines 45 and 46.
	Amendment No. 25, in page 33, line 45 [Clause 65], leave out
	'article 2.2 of the European framework decision'
	and insert
	'Schedule (European Framework List)'.
	Amendment No. 26, in page 33, line 46 [Clause 65], at end insert—
	'(3A) Schedule (European Framework List) (which is the list of conduct referred to in subsection (3) above) shall have effect.'.
	Amendment No. 27, in page 33, line 46 [Clause 65], at end insert—
	'(3B) The Secretary of State may by order amend the list of conduct set out in Schedule (European Framework List), but only in so far as is necessary to incorporate any extensions or amendments made to article 2.2 of the European framework decision by the Council of the European Union.'.
	Amendment No. 28, in page 34, line 34 [Clause 68], at end add—
	'(3) A territory may not be designated for the purposes of this Part unless that territory is—
	(a) a territory with which the United Kingdom has entered into a bilateral treaty governing extradition arrangements as between the United Kingdom and that territory, or
	(b) a territory with which the United Kingdom has entered into a multilateral treaty governing extradition arrangements as between the United Kingdom, that territory and one or more other territories.'.
	Amendment No. 29, in page 107, line 42 [Clause 198], at end insert—
	'(6A) The convention implementing the Schengen agreement is the convention made on 19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen agreement of 14 June 1985 between the governments of the states of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (OJL239, 22.09.2000, p.19).'.
	Amendment No. 30, in page 109, line 5 [Clause 204], after '5(2),', insert '65(3B)'.
	Amendment No. 31, in page 109, line 6 [Clause 204], after '5(2),', insert '65(3B)'.
	New schedule 1—'SCHEDULE—
	Section 65

European Framework List

1 Participation in a criminal organisation.
	2 Terrorism.
	3 Trafficking in human beings.
	4 Sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.
	5 Illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
	6 Illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives.
	7 Corruption.
	8 Fraud, including that affecting the financial interests of the European Communities within the meaning of the Convention of 26 July 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests.
	9 Laundering of the proceeds of crime.
	10 Counterfeiting currency, including of the euro.
	11 Computer-related crime.
	12 Environmental crime, including illicit trafficking in endangered animal species and in endangered plant species and varieties.
	13 Facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence.
	14 Murder, grievous bodily injury.
	15 Illicit trade in human organs and tissue.
	16 Kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking.
	17 Racism and xenophobia.
	18 Organised or armed robbery.
	19 Illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art.
	20 Swindling.
	21 Racketeering and extortion.
	22 Counterfeiting and piracy of products.
	23 Forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein.
	24 Forgery of means of payment.
	25 Illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters.
	26 Illicit trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials.
	27 Trafficking in stolen vehicles.
	28 Rape.
	29 Arson.
	30 Crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
	31 Unlawful seizure of aircraft/ships.
	32 Sabotage.'.

Nick Hawkins: This is the biggest issue in the Bill for us, and I make it clear to the Minister that we intend to divide the House on it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said on Second Reading, if part 1 applied only to terrorist offences we could, albeit in some ways reluctantly, accept it, because the unique threat of terrorism in our view alone justifies the draconian measures that the Government have proposed. The link between new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would do that. Amendment No. 3 returns to the issue of the framework list, which we have already debated today. Amendment No. 16 refers back to the question of which countries have signed up to the ECHR.
	In their amendments Nos. 89 and 90, the Liberal Democrats seek to take out countries that have the death penalty. In this House, the death penalty is a free-vote issue, on which hon. Members can express their personal views. I shall not detain the House on the matter this afternoon. I expressed my view in Committee, and I refer hon. Members to that.
	Several hon. Members in Standing Committee expressed the concern that, if it turned out that the Liberal Democrat amendments opened up a further loophole in respect of other countries that have retained the death penalty, people who should be extradited for very serious offences should not continue to be a burden on the British taxpayer by remaining in our prisons. In addition, Conservative Members understand entirely the reasoning of the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). I am pleased to see him in his place, as he has tabled amendments 25 to 31, and new schedule 1, in association with Liberal Democrat Members. The proposals would put the whole of the European framework list of offences on the face of the Bill. They would also include in the Bill a reference to Schengen.
	We believe that what those amendments propose would be better than having no parliamentary scrutiny at all. As I explained, however, Conservative Members have not followed the route chosen by Liberal Democrat Members and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. We do not agree with the framework list of offences. Many organisations outside the House do not agree with it. They include, on the left of politics, organisations such as Justice, and Liberty. Opponents on the right of politics include the Freedom Association, and the Democracy Movement.
	We believe that many of the offences in the framework list are far too vague and undefined. I made that point in the debate on the last-but-one group of amendments, and I shall not waste the House's time by staging a reprise. However, the Liberal Democrats have not added their names to amendment No. 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. Doubtless, the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) will say why he does not support that amendment.
	Finally, Government amendments Nos. 34, 36 and 48 also deal with the death penalty and put on the face of the Bill what the Home Affairs Committee wanted. EU member states Norway and Iceland are the only countries that the Government have said that they intend to designate. Neither of those countries retains the death penalty, so there is no difference in practice.
	Before I end this brief contribution, I want to adopt everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said on Second Reading. He noted that this part of the Bill was justified only in respect of terrorist offences. He said that the very draconian measures in part 1 were not needed, given that part 2 will do so much to speed up extradition proceedings. The sole exception is terrorism. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree—especially in the current international situation, which concentrates all our minds—that terrorism poses a unique threat.
	It is for the Government to justify the huge change that they are making. We feel that, despite the many hours in Committee and the warning that they received on Second Reading, the Government have signally failed to justify the change. That is why we intend to divide the House on what is a central matter in the Bill. It is undoubtedly a matter that will concern those in another place, as well as hon. Members in the Chamber this afternoon.

Chris Mullin: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) in speaking about new clause 1. I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 24, 28 and 29, which are in my name. I thank the Government for their amendments Nos. 34, 46 and 48, which prevent any countries that retain the death penalty from becoming category 1 countries, to which fast-track extradition could apply. That removes one of the Select Committee's major areas of concern.
	Apart from the proposals in connection with countries' retention of the death penalty, however, the Bill does not define which territories should fall into the two categories. It lays down no guidelines or principles governing the choice. Apart from the belated exclusion of the death penalty countries, the Bill contains no limits on which countries the Government can, by Order in Council, designate either as category 1 or as category 2 countries. Which countries appear in which categories, and on what basis a category country could be promoted to category 1, seemed to the Select Committee to be issues that are absolutely fundamental to the Bill. Future Orders in Council could dramatically change what Parliament understood to be the intention of the Bill at the time of enactment. We believe that Parliament should know clearly what policy and what principles it is being asked to agree, and we have therefore attempted to lay down some limits to the powers that Ministers are seeking for themselves.
	Amendment No. 24 would insert in clause 1 a provision that only countries that are signatories to the framework agreement may be category 1 countries—in effect, that means only EU states plus the Schengen countries, Norway and Iceland. Since we have been assured that those are the only countries that the Government intend to designate as part 1 countries, that should not pose the Government any problems.
	Amendment No. 28 would amend clause 68 so that part 2 countries are either those with which we have bilateral or multilateral treaties governing extradition arrangements.
	If none of that is acceptable to the Government—I cannot rule out that possibility, as they made it clear in their reply to the Select Committee that it was not—at the very least clause 205 should be amended to provide that Orders in Council to designate new countries or to move them from one category to another should be laid on an affirmative procedure so that they can be subject to proper scrutiny in Parliament. In his reply to the Select Committee, the Minister said that he would be prepared to consider that if a strong case for change could be made, but that he had yet to be persuaded. The case seems to me to be self-evident. It is to prevent countries, some of which may have very dubious human rights records, from being added solely at the whim of Ministers. I suggest that if the Minister is not minded to concede the point today, he should at least undertake to have another look at it when the Bill goes to another place.
	Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27, 30 and 31 and new schedule 1 would amend clause 65 to incorporate in the Bill the 32 offences listed in article 2(2) of the framework document—again, in line with the recommendations of the Select Committee. I tabled the amendments because I consider it highly undesirable that Parliament should have no say in future changes to the categories of offences listed in the framework decision, just as I consider it highly undesirable that Parliament should have no say as to which countries fall into which categories. Amendment No. 27 proposes, for the same reason, that any future amendment to the list of offences should be subject to an affirmative resolution.
	As with previous amendments tabled in my name, this is an argument about whether Parliament or Ministers in some future Government who might not be as benign as this one should decide what should constitute an offence. Faced with that choice, I back Parliament every time. As matters stand, Ministers will be able to change domestic law by signing up to proposals from the EC for the creation of new offences without reference to Parliament. With all due respect, it is not good enough for the Minister to say, as he does in his—very useful, by and large—reply to our report:
	"The Government does not know of any plans to amend the list".
	Nor is it good enough to say, as he did, that they need the flexibility to deal with any changes that are proposed. The Minister can have all the flexibility that he likes, provided that he takes Parliament with him. I hope that even at this late hour he will recant on this point.

John Burnett: We have signed up to a number of the amendments that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has mentioned, particularly those that deal with the issue of which countries can fall into category 1. We believe that there should be a more tangible definition, and we have said that such countries should be European Union countries that have abolished the death penalty in all cases. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South said, we have won half that battle. We are not satisfied, however, that the Government should have carte blanche to decide exactly which countries should be category 1 countries. The negative resolution procedure is inadequate for such decisions, and we should have liked them to be subject to the positive resolution procedure. At least, we want there to be a clearer definition, and we should have liked that to include only European Union countries that qualify for category 1 status.
	The simplification of the extradition procedure and the consequential removal of traditional safeguards such as the dual criminality requirement mean that the EU member states and Britain will be operating under a new arrest warrant system that will involve mutual recognition. Mutual recognition rests on the presumption that judicial systems are equal across the European Union, and there is no justification for extending the principle of mutual recognition and relinquishing many procedural safeguards in the case of non-EU member states that are not part of the European arrest warrant scheme. I understand that the Commission has recently published a Green Paper on procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings which, once adopted, will further substantiate mutual trust between member states. That adds a more compelling argument to our amendments Nos. 89 and 90.
	I want to say a few words about amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27, 30 and 31, and new schedule 1. We have talked about new countries coming in, and the amendments deal with the corollary to that, in the form of new offences. We have discussed the existing nebulous and unsatisfactory nature of the offences, and I shall return to that point on Third Reading if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the Minister made some points with which I would like to take issue. He suggested that, when in Rome, we should do as the Romans do, and of course we should obey the laws in other countries, but the provision of a schedule listing 32 nebulous offences in the Bill ensures that any extension of the list to include further types of offence would be subject to parliamentary control. If there are to be further offences, let us get them right this time.
	The Conservatives have talked about not joining in with these amendments because they do not approve of the list. We do not approve of the list—or of a lot of its drafting, which has led to a lack of clarity—but unfortunately the Government have signed up to it. Our amendments would provide damage limitation. If the Government were to propose any further offences, at least Parliament would have some say in the matter. For that reason, we wholeheartedly support the new clause.

Andrew Rosindell: My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made it clear that it matters not what our views on the death penalty are. What matters to me—and what should matter to the House—is that we respect the laws and punishments of sovereign nations. The Bill will undermine that principle. Indeed, the Government appear very confused over this particular aspect of it, and I am sorry to see that happen. There appears to be a level of hypocrisy coming through in relation to this part of the Bill, because they are proposing one thing to be right for Europe but not for the rest of the world. That is unacceptable.
	On Second Reading, during a challenge from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) about whether the famous plane spotters could have been extradited from the United Kingdom to Greece for their so-called crime, the former Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), revealed that hypocrisy in spectacular style.
	He said:
	"If a country has a crime of espionage and wishes to charge people with that, that must be its right . . . We expect that anybody in the UK who breaks our laws can be brought before British justice and that the extradition system should enable those people, if necessary, to be brought back to face British justice."—[Official Report, 9 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 47.]
	On serious charges relating to crimes such as terrorism or murder, I agree: sovereign states should be free to set their own laws. Equally, however, they should be allowed to set their own punishments when those laws are broken. Under the Bill, a murderer could not be extradited to the United States of America because that country continues to apply the death penalty, which is condemned under the European convention on human rights.
	The Government defend the sovereignty of Greece and its right to prosecute British citizens under Greek law, yet they say that we cannot help to bring a murderer to justice because American policy on capital punishment does not conform to the ECHR. Either Britain respects the sovereignty of other nations or it does not.
	I oppose the proposals.

Bob Ainsworth: I shall confine my comments to the two broad themes of what constitutes an extradition offence and what are the criteria for designating countries under part 1 or part 2 of the Bill.
	New clause 1 and amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 would limit the relaxation of dual criminality to terrorist offences only. After comments made on Second Reading and in the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) will not be surprised to learn that I do not accept the amendments. They are neither desirable nor workable.
	There is a need to modernise our extradition law, by putting in place a fast-track regime to govern our extradition relations with countries in whose criminal justice systems we have faith. A major plank of that attempt to fast-track extradition is the relaxation of dual criminality for the 32 categories of offence on the list. I make no apology for that. In previous exchanges, I have made it clear that British citizens who go abroad and break the law of another EU country should expect to face justice, just as we would want to prosecute people who come to the UK and break our law. The lack of an exact equivalent offence in the home country does not excuse illegal conduct; nor should it be a means of avoiding extradition.
	No one, least of all a Home Office Minister, underestimates the awful threat posed by terrorism, but nor can we ignore the menace of non-terrorist serious criminality and international crime. I do not believe that is what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath wants, but it would be one effect of his amendment.
	Indeed, the effects of the amendment would go further. The provision would implement two routes for extradition, according to intent. The courts would be required to make a judgment about a criminal's motive. However, defining a terrorist is often problematic. It is not always possible to distinguish between, for example, drug trafficking that is carried out for personal gain and that undertaken for another purpose. Some organisations in different parts of the world are involved in drug trafficking for their own gain. Sometimes the same organisations undertake drug trafficking to fund terrorism. If we accepted the Opposition's argument, we would open up an avenue for legal challenges and arguments not about the offence committed, but about the motives of the individual who committed it.
	The Opposition will say that they have defined terrorism according to the Terrorism Act 2000, but that raises another problem. The definition of terrorism to be used for this purpose is based on a list of terrorist offences contained in UK legislation. In other words, according to the Opposition, the only circumstances in which we should be prepared to do away with the dual criminality requirement is where the conduct is an offence in UK law. That is an interesting back-door way to end up with the entire dual criminality requirement intact, which would be the effect of new clause 1. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath seeks to sneak in by the back door complete opposition to the relaxation of dual criminality, in effect, in terrorism cases, as well as in others, so I am opposed to new clause 1. It would effectively do away with the dual criminality proposals, for terrorism, as well as the other serious offences.
	I turn now to the other amendments. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) for tabling amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27, 30 and 31 and new schedule 1. Those amendments are relatively clear in their effect. They would place in the Bill the list of offence categories set out in the framework decision in article 2.2.
	Clause 65 deals with what constitutes an extradition offence and makes it quite clear that the list of generic offences for which dual criminality will be abolished is that in the framework decision, so I suggest that no ambiguity or doubt will be occasioned by the present formulation. The list can be amended only by a unanimous decision of the Council. That would require very broad consensus, so it would be most unlikely that over-controversial or trivial offences would be added to the list.
	As I said in my written reply to my hon. Friend, I am not aware of any plan to amend the list, but if it were amended, the effect would be that the Bill would be updated automatically. We need to be able to retain the flexibility to deal with changes to the list, so I am not at present persuaded that there is any need to make the change that the amendments would bring about. I recognise, however, that my hon. Friend still holds very strongly the views that he has expressed today on the point raised by the Home Affairs Committee. It remains to be seen whether Members of another place feel the same way.
	I now turn to the designation of territories and amendments Nos. 16, 24, 28 and 29, tabled by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, and amendments Nos. 89 and 90, tabled by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). The effect of amendment No. 16 is that, if a country were party to the European convention on human rights, it would be automatically designated as a category 1 country. That amendment would put a huge and disproportionate amount of trust in countries that have signed up to the convention with absolutely no say domestically about whether or not they should be included in that category of streamlined extradition. The mere fact of ratifying the ECHR should not in itself lead to those countries being included in category 1. That suggestion seems to me to be a radical step, and I do not really believe that that is what the hon. Gentleman intended.
	Amendments Nos. 24, 28 and 29 lay out an alternative way in which states can be designated in primary legislation. On the face of it, there would seem to be nothing wrong with those amendments. However, they would restrict our ability to add new countries to either part 1 or part 2. This is a useful opportunity for me to offer some reassurance to the House by explaining our intentions with regard to part 1 and part 2 designations.
	We intend to designate all existing EU member states as part 1 countries. In the short term, it is possible that we will designate Norway and Iceland as part 1 countries. Further down the road, we will need to designate new members of the EU. Beyond that, there are no plans to add any country to part 1. It is possible, however, that at some time in the future it would be desirable to add some other country, such as a trusted Commonwealth country or regular bilateral treaty partner, to part 1. We do not believe that we should remove the flexibility to allow for that. I do not believe that there would be any great objection in the House to, say, putting Australia or Canada into part 1 if they desired it. As I have indicated, we have no plans to do so, but, equally, we do not see why our future flexibility should be unnecessarily limited.

Chris Mullin: If my hon. Friend can see no particular objection to adding any of the countries to which he has just referred, why do the Government not let the House in on the act, too?

Bob Ainsworth: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but, as I have said, his amendment effectively limits part 1 designation to EU countries and other Schengen countries. We need that flexibility, and there may be countries that do not fall into that category which ought, in the future, to be designated as part 1 countries, if they and we are desirous of that.

Oliver Letwin: This point will be relevant on Third Reading. The exchange between the Minister and the Select Committee Chairman is a fascinating one. Is the Minister's general principle that the Government want to maintain the flexibility to use the prerogative power to set British criminal law? Is that the principle that the Government seek to enunciate?

Bob Ainsworth: To be honest, I am not at all sure of all the ramifications of the right hon. Gentleman's question. I am talking about the Extradition Bill and what is in it at the moment. I want to maintain the ability, which I would have thought he would think reasonable, to designate as part 1 countries those countries with which we have regular extradition communication and traffic and in whose legal systems we have a high degree of confidence.

Oliver Letwin: I am sorry to delay the House, but this is a point of cardinal importance. The discussion between the Minister and the Select Committee Chairman is not about whether those countries should be added, but about whether the Government should be able to do that by prerogative power, or whether the House is the place in which such decisions about British criminal law are made.

Bob Ainsworth: I hear what both my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South and the right hon. Gentleman say on that, and, clearly, we will have to reflect on those comments and on others that may be made as the Bill progresses through the House. Clearly, if Members are not satisfied with the arrangements that are currently in the Bill, they will continue to make their views known, and we will continue to open our ears to those arguments. If I may, I shall move on to what may be an even bigger problem: the situation that faces us in relation to what will become part 2.
	It is currently possible for any country with which we do not have standing extradition relations to make an ad hoc extradition request to the UK. We would not want to lose that facility, not least because the reciprocal nature of extradition means that losing it would put in doubt the UK's ability to make ad hoc outgoing requests. Clause 1 gives us flexibility within a defined designation process that is subject to parliamentary approval. However, I know that some people were especially worried that we might want to add the USA—a country with the death penalty—to part 1. We tabled the amendments necessary to render that impossible, and I know that many hon. Members are pleased that it is beyond doubt that we will not allow a country with the death penalty to be designated under part 1.

Lady Hermon: I am pleased that the Minister has clarified the wording of Government amendment No. 34. It says:
	"A territory may not be designated for the purposes of this Part if a person found guilty in the territory of a criminal offence may be sentenced to death for the offence".
	I am deeply concerned by the opening words. Why did the Government choose to use the phrase
	"A territory may not be designated"
	rather than stating that a territory shall not be designated if it has the death penalty?

Bob Ainsworth: I have heard people arguing about the difference between the words "may" and "shall" in this House and other places in many different circumstances over many years. I hope that our intention is clear, and, in case it is not, I shall clarify it: we do not intend it to be possible for any country that retains the death penalty to be designated as a category 1 country.

Annabelle Ewing: I welcome the Government's actions but I wonder why the provision on category 1 countries appeared in the Bill in the first place. Will the Minister elucidate on that point?

Bob Ainsworth: All I can say is that it was never our intention to designate the USA as a category 1 country. That is the obvious example because the USA is one of our main extradition partners. Indeed, the USA has no desire to be designated as a category 1 country. I hope that we are putting that fact beyond all doubt to the satisfaction of the hon. Lady and other hon. Members.
	The amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats would provide that only EU countries could be designated under part 1. As I said, in common with other EU member states and in accordance with normal practice, we intend to designate Norway and Iceland in the near future. I hope that Liberal Democrat Members will not object to that in principle, and I am sure that there was simply an oversight.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister made a fascinating speech, not least when he responded to interventions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary. His responses revealed that he has not thought through the full implications of the Government's proposals, and we shall return to that point on Third Reading and, to a greater extent, in another place.
	We entirely understand why the Minister is giving interesting signals to Conservative Members and the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). To summarise his soft words, he is signalling that after one more push in another place, the Government will probably give way with limited grace to the suggestion of including the framework list in the Bill. I encourage the hon. Member for Sunderland, South to keep talking to his friends in another place to try to ensure, as we will, that one more push will be forthcoming and we may yet get exactly what we and the Select Committee want—indeed, we may get a good deal more than we need.
	On the crucial issue of part 1 applying only to terrorism, we are not going to agree. The Minister is not going to agree with those of us on the Opposition Benches and we will have to divide the House. The central issue is the unique threat of terrorism. We had seriously hoped that including in the amendment the Government's definition of terrorism as drafted in their legislation might have concentrated their mind and persuaded them to accept that we are right to say that part 1 should apply only to such a unique set of offences. I am sorry that that attempt has failed. There is still a clear division between Government and Opposition, and we will therefore press amendment No. 1 to a vote.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9
	 — 
	Referral of Part 1 Warrant to Secretary of State

'.(1) Where a Part 1 warrant has been issued in connection with conduct which would not constitute an offence under the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom, that warrant must be referred to the Secretary of State, who must make a decision separate to any decision of the appropriate judge as to whether extradition to the requesting country would be proper in all the circumstances.
	(2) The Secretary of State must make an annual report to both Houses of Parliament on the cases in which he has exercised his discretion as set out in subsection (1) above and the reasons for the exercise of his discretion in each case.'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 302.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 19
	 — 
	Injustice and Oppression

'.—A person's extradition to a category 2 territory is barred if it appears that because the accusation against him is not made in good faith in the interests of justice it would, having regard to all the circumstances, be unjust or oppressive to return him.'.—[Mr. Burnett]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 302.

Question accordingly negatived.
	It being four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr Deputy Speaker put the Questions necessary to bring proceedings on consideration to a close, pursuant to Orders [9 December 2002 and this day].
	Amendment proposed: No. 20, in page 1, line 17 [Clause 2], at end insert—
	'(c) The statement referred to in subsections (3) and (5) shall conform with the provisions of the model warrant annexed to the framework decision.'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 297.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 63
	 — 
	Extradition Offences: Person Not Sentenced for Offence

Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 30, line 34, leave out
	'falls within the European framework list'
	and insert
	'constitutes terrorism'.—[Mr. Nick Hawkins.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 352.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Bob Ainsworth: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Now that we have reached the final stage of scrutiny of the Bill in this House, it is appropriate that we should reflect on some of the key points that have emerged from our deliberations. The first point that I want to put on record is that nobody has sought to defend the United Kingdom's present extradition system. That has not been a point of contention between us. It simply cannot be right that fugitives can frustrate the system by bringing appeal after appeal, raising the same point each time, with the result that their cases can take years to resolve. The case for reform is overwhelming.
	The second point of note is that the proposals in part 2, which deal with extradition outside the European Union and away from the European arrest warrant, have been broadly welcomed. I am grateful to the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats for their support for that part of the Bill. Similarly, the provisions that spell out for the first time how we should make outgoing extradition requests, and those that deal with the powers available to the police in extradition cases, have proved largely uncontentious. We have hardly had to deal with them at all during the passage of the Bill. It is fair to say, therefore, that the bulk of our debate has centred on part 1, and it is on that that we ought to concentrate once more, as we try to make a case for the part 1 proposals and the European arrest warrant.
	Given that the status quo is untenable in an age in which travel around Europe is so easy and cheap, I would ask the Opposition to tell the House how they would address the issue of extradition in those circumstances. Are they in favour of the full-scale harmonisation of our criminal justice systems? No, they are not—as they have confirmed and as we all recognise. They are clearly equally not in favour of mutual recognition. Let us be quite clear that, from my point of view, those are the only two realistic options. The Government are quite clear that mutual recognition is the way forward. In Committee, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) repeatedly described part 1 as "draconian". No matter how many times the hon. Gentleman repeats that claim, it will not be true.
	I shall set out the safeguards in part 1. Anyone who is subject to a European arrest warrant will be arrested by a British law enforcement officer. That was always the case and I hope that the Opposition have the good grace to accept that it is now in no doubt, as we have made it explicit in the Bill. They can no longer make spurious claims that foreign police officers could make such arrests.
	Once a person has been arrested, he must be brought before a UK judge as soon as possible. At the initial hearing, the judge will check that the person is indeed the subject of the extradition warrant and decide whether to grant bail. For the first time in extradition cases, there will be a presumption in favour of bail.
	The main extradition hearing, at which the judge will consider whether extradition should take place, will be held soon after the initial hearing. Extradition is barred if the double jeopardy rule applies and if there are no specialty arrangements in the requesting state, or if the extradition request has been made for the purpose of punishing a fugitive on the grounds of race, nationality, religion or political opinion. No country that retains the death penalty will be accepted under our part 1 arrangements.

Lady Hermon: I apologise to the Minister and to the House for not being present at the beginning of the debate.
	The Minister referred to the double jeopardy rule. Will he kindly elaborate on what the Government now mean by double jeopardy? As he knows, the Criminal Justice Bill, which was in Committee at the same time as this Bill, makes huge changes to the double jeopardy rule. What does that rule mean in the context of the Extradition Bill? Does it mean that new and compelling evidence will be taken into account, or not?

Bob Ainsworth: The measures that apply to extradition will be those that apply in our justice system. If changes are made to the double jeopardy rule they will be reflected in our extradition arrangements. At present, the double jeopardy rule applies. If Parliament decides to amend it, that will have ramifications for extradition.
	Extradition cannot take place if it would be unjust or oppressive by virtue of a fugitive's mental or physical condition. Most important, it cannot take place when it would breach a fugitive's rights under the European convention on human rights. The Bill provides an impressive package of measures and it seems to me that only a perverse definition of "draconian" could apply to them.
	Ultimately, the difference between the Government and the Opposition comes down to dual criminality. That matter has been at the base of all, or almost all, our discussions. I make no apology for the fact that the Bill removes the dual criminality requirement in certain limited circumstances where a request has come from an EU country.
	No one will be extradited for conduct that occurs in the UK that is not contrary to our law. I reiterate that, because people constantly allege that that is not true: nobody can be extradited for conduct that occurs in this country that is not contrary to British law. What is the great constitutional principle that holds that we should not extradite a person who breaks the law of another EU country just because we happen not to have an exact equivalent offence in UK law? We are talking about EU countries which are mature democracies and ECHR signatories.
	If a person committed an offence in another EU country and was arrested there, we should not object to them being put on trial. Indeed, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) confirmed that in the Standing Committee on 9 January 2003, at column 36. So why should the fact that such people manage to cross a border before being apprehended allow them to evade justice? Why should the UK be a sanctuary for those who have committed crimes in another EU member states? Of course, that cuts both ways.
	As the then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen said on Second Reading, not all our EU partners recognise the same serious offences as those on the UK statute book. If people come to this country and commit one of those offences, we would expect to be able to put them on trial. We would certainly not accept the excuse that the conduct happened not to be an offence in their home country. Equally important, we would want to be able to extradite such people to stand trial if they had managed to get away and leave our country. The partial abolition of the dual criminality requirement will allow us to do exactly that.
	As long as the Opposition remain wedded to the idea that there must be absolute dual criminality in the EU, it follows that they are effectively suggesting that people should be able to come here and commit offences such as incitement to racial hatred, or indulge in fraudulent trading with complete impunity. [Interruption.] Well, so long as such people can cross the frontier before our police apprehend them, that is exactly what Conservatives Members are saying. I do not know what their justification is, but I suppose they think that it is a price worth paying that people should be allowed to commit those offences with impunity. That has almost come out on a few occasions. Those are the consequences of the line that they are taking, and it is no good their trying to deny it. That is exactly what would happen.
	Finally, I wish to say why the Government have decided to remove the dual criminality requirement for all list offences that attract a one-year penalty in the requesting state, rather than just for those that attract a three-year penalty—the minimum required under the framework decision.
	The basic threshold for extradition has been set at 12 months imprisonment for more than 100 years, and no one has seriously suggested that we should change that. However, if it is accepted that 12 months is the threshold for extradition, it would not be sensible to set a different threshold for the application of the dual criminality rule. That would be a recipe for confusion. Moreover, if the Conservative party takes the view that dual criminality is an important and necessary safeguard to prevent injustice when dealing with requests from other EU countries, that safeguard should apply not only to those offences that attract penalties of one to three years, but to more serious offences where the person concerned could face a much longer prison sentence. It would be illogical to impose a dual criminality requirement at the lower end of the offence scale, but not at the upper end.
	The plain fact is that the European arrest warrant is a worthwhile measure. It will enhance co-operation between European states. It offers very real advantages to the United Kingdom and law-abiding UK citizens. We will be able to bring back more speedily those accused of serious crimes in the UK. No longer will some of our European partners be able to avoid extraditing their own nationals. It is the only mechanism available to encourage countries such as Austria to be prepared to extradite their own nationals. They are not prepared to do so currently, which can detract from our ability to offer justice to the victims of crime in our country.
	No longer will those countries be able to refuse to extradite for fiscal offences. No longer will they be able to refuse to extradite where their statutes of limitation have expired. All of those real weaknesses in the current extradition arrangements have caused us real difficulties. Criminals have not been slow to exploit them. The introduction of the European arrest warrant will sweep away those loopholes.
	The Bill that will leave the House is better than the one that entered it: the House agreed earlier to a number of changes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South and the other members of the Home Affairs Committee for the considerable effort that they have put into scrutinising the Bill. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), other Conservative Members who served on the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and my hon. Friends who served on it.
	This is an important Bill. It will ensure the swift and efficient return of those who are subject to extradition while safeguarding the rights of all such people. It will mean that our extradition arrangements will move from the 19th century framework, which is totally unacceptable and which no one defends, into the 21st century where they belong. It gives me great pleasure to commend the Bill to the House.

Oliver Letwin: I thank the Minister for the significant progress that was made, not by me, of course, but by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), the Minister himself and others in Committee. Clearly, some of the technical deficiencies in the Bill from part 2 onwards were altered and removed, which is much to the Minister's credit. I am particularly glad that the change to the Bill that was required, as I noted in my speech on Second Reading, to ensure that a British police officer would be involved in any arrest has been made today.
	The Minister is right that the Bill, from part 2 onwards, could command support. We are now on the threshold of the Bill moving to another place, however, and he will be aware that we will ask our colleagues in the Lords—with considerable support, I suspect, from other parts of the House—to fight a sustained campaign radically to change part 1. It is therefore important briefly to rehearse the structure of the argument as we see it in relation to that part of the Bill, and, more importantly, to lay the groundwork for what I suspect, by the time we discuss the matter again—when the Lords, I hope, send the Bill back—will form the majority of our consideration.
	As regards the substance of the argument, the Minister has just exposed the intellectual deficiency of the position that he and the Home Secretary have taken. He argued a moment or two ago that if we are to maintain a proper relationship between this country and our fellow members of the EU, and an effective, efficient and modern system, we need part 1 of the Bill. He is promoting a Bill, however, that contains part 2. I therefore presume that the Government regard part 2 as an appropriate method of dealing with extradition in relation to the rest of the world. It is extremely difficult to understand what is the material and operative difference, for the purposes of the Bill, between other countries that are members of the EU or that are within the Schengen area, and other jurisdictions that have established civilised and proper systems of jurisdiction. It is extremely difficult to understand what the basis for part 1 can be, other than the fact that the Home Secretary, among others, signed a framework directive that effectively compels part 1 to be introduced in this country, when those who had in mind a new evolution of EU competence saw their opportunity in the aftermath of 11 September. I do not know what the Minister believes, but I do not believe that in the absence of 11 September and the rush that it precipitated to a framework directive we would be discussing part 1. Instead, the Government would have favoured part 2 and we could have all supported the Bill.
	What makes it imperative that the part 1 procedure applies to Austria but not to Canada? We have not heard Ministers give a coherent explanation for that today, in Committee, on Second Reading or in public. The Minister just explained—I do not know whether he realised quite what he was saying—that the discrepancy was brought about by the exigencies of travel. He argued that we need part 1 to deal with our relations with the EU because people travel around Europe a great deal in this modern world, and that part 2 is sufficient for everyone else. He cannot for a moment think that that is the determining difference, however, because people travel enormously to the rest of the world as well. The problem cannot be as a result of a difference that is located in the alignment and propriety of legal systems. Many Anglo Saxon juridical systems are vastly better aligned with our own than our continental partners' on the mainland of Europe.
	We have yet to hear a coherent explanation of the need to have part 1 and part 2, save the one that I advanced: that the Home Secretary found himself in the odd position of rushing helter-skelter to sign something because we faced the ghastly realities of 11 September.

George Howarth: Even the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that there is a crucial and immense difference. Those countries covered by part 1 are subject to the European convention on human rights and the framework directive.

Oliver Letwin: The framework directive is the problem. It is because the Home Secretary signed it in the aftermath of 11 September that part 1 exists. The ECHR is a red herring. We could import ECHR constraints into part 1. I know that, because the Minister has imported them into part 2. There is no reason to apply part 1 to countries that are signatories to the ECHR, and part 2 to those that are not, because the Minister has devised an escape route by importing the ECHR into part 2. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) is right to mention the framework directive, however. It was foisted on the Home Secretary—or perhaps he lunged for it—because we had gone through the trauma of 11 September and a group of people in other European countries and the Commission saw it as a golden opportunity to advance the cause of the EU's juridical competence.
	My hon. Friends and I have to an extent accepted that the awful realities of 11 September live with us. That is why, clutching ourselves, pinching our noses and worrying, we have accepted part 1 in the sole case of terrorism, but we will not go beyond that.

Bob Ainsworth: I think that the right hon. Gentleman was present when we discussed that earlier. Does he accept that his proposal to single out terrorism as the only offence to which part 1 would apply is not workable and would reintroduce dual criminality across the board?

Oliver Letwin: As the Minister knows, and, indeed, as he has said, we have the most profound differences of view about dual criminality, quite beyond the question of Parliament. None the less, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath has tabled perfectly workable amendments. We do not accept that a definition in terms of the Government's legislation of the nature of terrorism is unworkable.

Bob Ainsworth: It is a British definition.

Oliver Letwin: It is indeed a British definition, and is none the worse for that. The Minister will certainly not make headway against me by suggesting that there is some imperfection in this Parliament defining those things for which this Parliament will allow people to be extradited. To us, that seems a perfectly proper method of proceeding.

Lady Hermon: Will the right hon. Gentleman address the particular circumstances in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom? Paramilitary terrorist organisations, both loyalist and republican, smuggle weapons, fuel and cigarettes. Given that the paramilitary terrorism that we have had to confront is so closely tied to other very serious offences, his proposal to narrow the definition to terrorism would do a great disservice to people of the United Kingdom.

Oliver Letwin: I do not think that that would be the case, although I would be delighted to discuss the matter with the hon. Lady. If part 2 were applied to the Irish Republic, for example, in respect of offences that are not covered by the definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act 2000, it would work perfectly well. The oddity of the Minister's logic is that his remarks about part 1 undercut his case for part 2. If part 2 is, generally speaking, effective and modern as a means of extradition, why will not it work in the case of Austria? If it works for Canada, why will not it work for southern Ireland? I cannot see the logic in that.
	I want to put on record what I think will be the crux when the Bill, as I hope, returns to this place. In contrast to the overwhelming forces which, with a notable exception recently, the Minister can normally carry into the Lobby, it is likely that in another place matters will be far more evenly balanced. I anticipate that, when the Minister's noble Friends on the Treasury Bench scent the possibility of defeat, they will argue that the House should not be irresponsible and that it should take into account the fact that the Home Secretary has already given the game away—in short, the framework directive is compelling. I do not know whether they will argue that, but I want to do my best this evening to ensure that they do not. If I fail in that endeavour, I want at least to ensure that we have a firm platform on which to erect the arguments that we will then want to make if the Bill returns to this House as a result of messages from the other place.
	I do not know how it came about that when Parliament won the civil war, it lost the peace. I do not know how it came about that the prerogative power was not properly constrained in this country. That power is not unique, but it is most unusual. We are the only sophisticated democracy of which I am aware in which a Government can sign such things and incorporate them into our domestic law without proper parliamentary scrutiny other than that of other members of the European Union. How we allowed that to evolve is a matter for deep historical investigation, but this case is perhaps more poignant than any other, because huge endeavours were made in the House to ensure that the third pillar was different and that the prerogative power could not have such an effect on our criminal law. If our constitution, or what passes for it, has any meaning—in my more pessimistic moments, I doubt that it has—it is that under the third pillar the prerogative power does not have the capacity to bind Parliament. I do not otherwise know what the third pillar is. If the Home Secretary took it into his head to sign the framework directive after 11 September under conditions that, we are all aware, were extremely emotionally charged, that is a problem for him, not Parliament. Nobody in the Commons or the other place should listen to the argument that this country is bound by the framework directive. If the judgment of Parliament when we come to the end of this process is that part 1 should not apply, or should not apply except in the case of terrorism, or should otherwise be modified, its will should prevail and the Home Secretary should be asked to unsign the framework directive and seek to renegotiate it to conform with the will of Parliament.
	I do not know whether our hon. Friends in the Commons or our noble Friends in the other place will be able to achieve that. I do not know whether negotiations between the Commons and the other place, should it come to that, would accomplish that, but I am extremely keen to ensure that no one says to us in the Commons or our noble Friends in the other place that we have in any sense conceded the principle that the framework directive dictates an outcome in British law. I hope that Ministers will confirm that that is their understanding, and that we have not in the past few months gone through a charade in relation to part 1. I hope that they too believe that the Commons and the other place, gathered together as the Parliament of this country, have the power to decide what our British criminal law is, notwithstanding the Home Secretary's actions in the days succeeding 11 September.
	That principle is vastly more important than any other that we are going to encounter in the Bill. It goes to the root of the relationship between our Parliament and our Executive, as well as the relationship between our Parliament and the Executives of the countries with which we are in partnership in the European Union. When people look back at the Bill and consider the debates that took place on Second Reading and in Committee, as well as those that will take place in another place, they will see much more clearly whether the Bill set that precedent or whether it set a contrary precedent and established that once a Minister went to Brussels and signed such a directive he compelled Parliament to take a particular position. That is the crux of the matter—it is the item that history will judge us by. I hope profoundly that, on that matter at least, we shall find that we are at one with the Government.

George Howarth: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. However, is his argument not inadvertently misleading? My understanding is that the framework directive does not make part 1 inevitable—it merely makes it possible. There is a world of difference between those two ideas.

Oliver Letwin: I do not seek to mislead the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's interpretation is exactly the one that the Government will make—it is certainly mine. I agree with him—I do not think that the framework directive compels Parliament to accept part 1. I am merely trying to ensure that at no point in the debate in the other place does a Minister spring to the Dispatch Box and use the argument that the framework directive compels acceptance of part 1.

Bob Ainsworth: I am not trying to suggest that the situation is perfect, but surely the right hon. Gentleman accepts that the framework decision went through the scrutiny arrangements in the House and cleared them. It was put in place when the Conservative party was in government. I have no desire to suggest that the arrangements could not be improved. However, these scrutiny arrangements have been in place for some time now.

Oliver Letwin: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman now sees the danger that I foresaw. I accept that the scrutiny arrangements are in place—I share the Minister's view and have a stronger version of it—but the arrangements are inadequate. That is not the issue. This is a third pillar measure. This is a measure relating to British criminal law. This is a measure that lies within the sovereignty and competence of this Parliament. On my understanding of this tenuous miasma known as the British constitution, it is not open to the Executive to use its prerogative power, scrutiny or no scrutiny, to override or compel the powers of this Parliament in relation to British criminal law. That is the point that I seek to establish. I hope that it will be the Government's position.
	At least let it be understood that if the Government seek to argue in the other place that the framework directive compels part 1, contrary to my understanding and that of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East, they are taking a position to which we root and branch object and with which we root and branch disagree. That is the crunch issue that we shall face when, as I hope, the Bill returns to this place. It is an issue that I hope will at last attract to the Bill the public attention that it has so far so dramatically and sadly lacked.

Chris Mullin: As the Minister said, I think that the Bill leaves us in much better shape than it was in when it arrived in this place. Some of the improvements that the Opposition and the Select Committee on Home Affairs have achieved are examples of what can be obtained through effective scrutiny.
	I have some sympathy with the points that the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) was making a moment ago. There is a sense in which senior Ministers went off to Brussels and signed something, and then left my hon. Friend the Minister to explain it to us afterwards. He has done a good job of doing that. I do not have the same hang-ups as Opposition Members about European—and certainly European Union—judicial systems. I do not follow them as far as they would like us to. At the back of all this, I think there has been a slight feeling that the deal has already been done and that there is not much that the British Parliament can do about it. That makes me a bit uneasy, too.

Lady Hermon: I ask the hon. Gentleman to comment on the nature of directives. Directives are used regularly within the European Community to harmonise legislation throughout the member states. Member states are set aims and objectives by the directive and it is entirely within the discretion of each member state how it implements a directive. However, if the directive is not implemented by the time a deadline has passed, that gives rise to direct rights that individuals can rely upon anyway.

Chris Mullin: I do not want to open out the debate into the long struggle that has taken place between the House and the European Commission and all its works. For the purposes of the Bill I want only to place it on record that I think that, at the back of the Bill, there has been the problem which, to some extent, the right hon. Member for West Dorset described a moment ago. However, I think that the principles are sound. It must be reasonable that we should be able to extradite people who have committed offences in judicial systems where broadly similar standards apply, and that they can be returned to face the law. Most EU judicial systems are rather more merciful than our own.

Annabelle Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Mullin: Yes, but I was not proposing to make a big meal of these matters.

Annabelle Ewing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I hope not to take up too much of his time. Does he not accept that the principle of mutual recognition that underpins EC first pillar legislation is based on minimal harmonisation of standards? The third pillar measure in question is an extension of the principle of mutual recognition to an area where minimal harmonisation of standards has not occurred.

Chris Mullin: That is a reasonable point and it has been made quite a lot during our discussions.
	As I said, I think that the Bill has emerged from the House in rather better shape than when it was introduced. There is still some scope for improvement and that may occur in another part of the building. I should like to thank the Minister for the constructive way in which he has proceeded, especially in his engagement with the Select Committee. Pre-legislative scrutiny is a science that it is still in its infancy, but his handling of the Bill has been better in terms of engaging with the Select Committee than that of almost any of the Bills that we have so far considered.
	The process has been helped by the fact that the Bill was published well in advance, so it was possible to gather other opinions. That is not the case in respect of much of the other legislation that comes tumbling out of the Home Office. The Committee often has to conduct an inquiry before we see the Bill in question. On antisocial behaviour, the Committee had a session with the same overworked Minister this morning, but the Bill is yet to come. It will be along in a couple of days and I think that it will be considered on Second Reading in a couple of weeks' time. Everybody acknowledges that that is not an entirely satisfactory way of doing business, especially in terms of very controversial measures. The Bill has benefited by being published well in advance and I know that Home Office Ministers would like to achieve that in introducing all their legislation. That is to the benefit of the Government and Parliament, and I hope that that process will continue. I look forward to seeing what happens to the Bill when it goes to another place.

John Burnett: I should like to put on record again my gratitude and that of the House for the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The Committee deserves credit not only for the report, but for the speed with which it drew it up. It has been of great help to Opposition parties and in Committee, and I believe that it has also been a great help to the Government themselves. During the passage of the Bill, we have made considerable progress. Like other hon. Members, I welcomed on Report the fact that the Government have made significant concessions.
	As I said earlier, the major concession was the restoration of specialty. That was important for me and a great many of us on the Committee. We now have sensible definitions of enforcement personnel. Furthermore, any country that retains the death penalty cannot qualify as a category 1 country. I tabled an amendment in Committee to that effect, and I am grateful that that proposal is now part of the Bill. I am also delighted to see that there has to be judicial authority to effect a European arrest warrant, although that is subject to transitional arrangements that will, I am sure, be scrutinised carefully in another place. There will now be more satisfactory provisions in relation to identity. No doubt those in the other place will again pay careful attention to the level of the burden of proof as set out by the Minister.
	There are genuine difficulties in relation to which countries should be designated as category 1 countries and would benefit thereby from the expedited fast-track procedure. There are also genuine objections to the nebulous 32 offences. Of course, we should obey the laws of the country in which we reside or the countries that we visit.
	The Minister should not scoff at the genuine reservations and anxieties of hon. Members who argue cogently for accurate definitions of offences that are eligible for fast-track extradition. As the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) rightly said, there is no minimum harmonisation standard. Their Lordships will revert to such matters, but we derive encouragement from the Minister's statement that he will "have his ears open" to those problems.
	Considerable progress has been made and I believe that there will be more in the other place.

David Cameron: I did not intend to speak. However, not for the first time, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) inspired me to say something to back him up—not that he needs it—on the point about whether we can amend what the Government agree under the third pillar.
	It would be instructive to share with hon. Members an interesting occurrence in the Home Affairs Committee. We wanted to try to find a way in which to accept the European arrest warrant while reducing the impact of changes to dual criminality. We perceived them as constituting a major change to our constituents' rights. We proposed that the Home Secretary should have a back-stop power. Our recommendation stated
	"that in each case the district judge should look at the terms of the offence specified in the European Arrest Warrant and make a statement as to whether dual criminality applies. In cases where the alleged offence is not a crime in the UK a separate decision about whether to extradite should then be made by the Home Secretary, who is responsible to Parliament."
	The Select Committee devised that modest proposal, which we included in a draft report. Our excellent Clerk returned to the Committee and said that he did not believe that we could include it in the final report because parliamentary counsel's advice suggested that the recommendation might be asking the Government to do something illegal. We discussed the matter in the Committee and decided that that was ridiculous because Select Committees should be able to make recommendations to the Government. They could then tell us whether the recommendations were illegal and try to explain their reasons to the House of Commons.
	What have we come to if we cannot even make a cogent and sensible suggestion in Committee for reducing the European arrest warrant's impact on people's freedom in this country? The Minister could take two steps. First, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said, he could ask the Home Secretary to return to the European Council to try to renegotiate, at a slower pace, the warrant which was initially negotiated in haste, so that it provided the protection that members of the Home Affairs Committee believed to be necessary.
	Secondly, the European arrest warrant does not state that we cannot have a back-stop power. Why do not the Government have a little courage and introduce such a power to our domestic legislation? That would be a good provision, which an all-party Committee supports. We should try that and allow it to be tested in European law, thus ascertaining whether it went against the terms of the directive.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said, it is essential to ascertain whether the third pillar means that the Government can sign up to something in Europe that we cannot amend in the House. If that is the case, what is the point of the many hours of debate in the Select Committee, the Standing Committee and the Chamber? We need an answer to that question in the other place, if not here, before we finish scrutinising and, I hope, improving the Bill.

Lady Hermon: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on a Bill that I welcome.
	In a previous incarnation many years ago, when I lectured in the law faculty at Queen's university, Belfast, I taught international law, and I must confess that I dreaded the weeks when I had to lecture on extradition law. It was extremely complicated, and I am sure that the students ended up no more enlightened. I am therefore delighted that the extradition procedure has been simplified.
	The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) expressed genuine concern about the effect of European Community law on our criminal law, but I must tell him that it already has an effect, in that it already provides a complete defence to a criminal charge in this country without our having to do anything. Let me give an example from Northern Ireland. A lorryload of pigs that had been smuggled across the border was intercepted by a police officer in South Armagh. The driver pleaded guilty to a charge of breaching our domestic legislation because he did not have the relevant documents. He faced three months in prison, confiscation of his 75 bacon pigs—my students used to write "baking pigs", but they were bacon pigs—or both.
	The driver's defence lawyer, who had had the excellent experience of being taught European Community law at Queen's—as the House knows, we are very progressive in Belfast—advised him to make a plea based on that law, and on the free movement of goods between one member state and another. The driver was simply moving goods—pigs—from the Republic of Ireland to the United Kingdom. That was a complete defence to a criminal charge. I could cite other cases, but you would intervene if I did, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Oliver Letwin: I accept that, alas, first and second-pillar European legislation has brought about the principle of the defeasibility of our domestic criminal legislation in our law. There is, I fear, no doubt of that. Does the hon. Lady not recognise, however, that in this instance—we are dealing here with the third pillar—we would take an immensely significant further step if we accepted that the Home Secretary of the day could negate Parliament's activity in legislating afresh in the sphere of domestic law simply by signing a framework directive in Brussels?

Lady Hermon: That is a good point, but it is technically incorrect. For many years directives, having passed the date for implementation in member states, have become directly effective, which is quite different from directly applicable. EU regulations are directly applicable; directives give individuals a directly effective right to challenge decisions in their local courts. This is not an exception, and such cases are not unusual.

Oliver Letwin: rose—

Lady Hermon: The right hon. Gentleman, with an angelic smile, requests me to give way again. I shall do so, although I am sure it is not wise.

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because I think this is immensely important.
	I accept the doctrine of direct effect—how could I do otherwise, since a series of cases make its existence clear, regrettable though I consider that to be. In this instance, however, who would have the locus? A foreign Government, the Government of an EU member state, would have to try to persuade the European Court of Justice that they had the locus to enforce the direct effect of the directive in a UK court. That has never happened in a UK court, and it would be a further step amounting to a huge constitutional innovation.

Lady Hermon: That was, as ever, a very helpful intervention. I think that the person charged could plead European Community law on free movement—free movement of people, in this context—but I repeat that it is not unusual for provisions in directives to be directly effective.
	Let me now move on, before the right hon. Gentleman develops a habit of intervening. In my view, easily the best thing that Labour has done since coming to power in 1997 is bringing home the European convention of human rights and incorporating it through the Human Rights Act 1998. It has therefore grieved and troubled me to note those past occasions when legislation such as this has not measured up to our human rights commitments. Because of the changes and amendments that the Government have introduced today, I am much happier to believe that we are in line with our convention obligations, particularly given the Minister's clarification and firm assurance, in response to my earlier intervention, that no one would be extradited to a part 1 territory if they were at risk of the death penalty. Indeed, that is a clear obligation under the longstanding jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
	I am very glad that this country has ruled out for ever and a day the death penalty, which was on the Republic of Ireland's statute book but is never used. I am very pleased that the Government have made it clear that there is no way a person will be extradited from this country to face the death penalty. As I said, it is clear that our obligations within the convention have been recognised today, and I welcome that.
	On a very personal note, my dear husband was Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—it was not the Police Service of Northern Ireland in those days—for almost 10 years, making him the longest serving Chief Constable bar none. It was harrowing to realise that those who had committed atrocious and appalling acts of terrorism could escape across the border into the Republic of Ireland. It was also harrowing for relatives of victims to know that, because of the complicated extradition procedures involving the United Kingdom and the only member state that borders it, that state refused to, or found it difficult to, extradite such people in order at least to face a trial—there is always the presumption of innocence—in Northern Ireland or elsewhere for the atrocious crimes that they allegedly committed.
	The right hon. Member for West Dorset seemed to turn his mind to terrorism, and if the Bill makes it easier to extradite those who are guilty of terrorist crimes, I fully support it. However, I urge the Minister not to exclude the linked paramilitary activities that fund terrorism. Terrorists need funds to carry out these appalling acts, so I urge him not to narrow the provision to cover just terrorism itself.

Bob Ainsworth: With the leave of the House, I will respond to what has been a very worthwhile debate, in which we have finalised consideration of the Bill in this place. I understand that, potentially, we have until 7 o'clock, but I am not planning to delay the House until then—unless the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) pops up repeatedly.
	I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and the various members of the Select Committee for the work that they have put into this Bill. Their interventions and representations have provided food for thought, and considerable effort went into that process. As both Opposition parties have recognised, that was a great help to them in getting their heads round what is an obscure area of law. As I said in my opening speech, that process has led to a better Bill going to the other place. As my hon. Friend knows, I will wear the praise that he heaps upon me with pride—and I hope that he tells the boss as well.
	I do not have the skills to get involved in the intellectual legal tussle that has just taken place between the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and the right hon. Member for West Dorset. The hon. Lady's contribution was impressive, and as a non-lawyer I doubt whether I can match it in any way. I hope that she has given the right hon. Gentleman food for thought. As he often asks us to continue to reflect on our positions, I hope that he will continue to reflect on his. He will have to justify his line that the measure should apply only to terrorism. The hon. Member for North Down exposes that view on the basis of practical experience. It is not workable and I believe—I hope that I am not being unfair to him—that the right hon. Gentleman knows it. He does not want to stand before the House and be seen to make a proposal that would weaken our armoury against terrorism, so he has slipped this in as the very minimum that he can achieve with respect to part 1. Effectively, he is proposing something that simply would not work and he is also ignoring some serious crimes.
	It is interesting to note how the right hon. Gentleman conducts himself in this Third Reading debate. We have been bombarded week after week by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), making the constant allegation that these are dreadfully draconian measures, but the right hon. Gentleman chooses to challenge us mainly not on the measures in part 1, although I am sure that he does not agree with them, but instead he alleges that we are doing something dreadful and that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was appallingly lax in his response to the tragedy of 9/11 and allowed himself to be rushed into commitments now being imposed on Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman invites us to think that it is all awful and hopes that some way can be found of undoing the dreadful damage that has been done.
	I might not want to challenge the right hon. Gentleman to a legal intellectual battle, but I am able to challenge him on the historical record. In that light, there is only one thing wrong with what he says—it is simply not true, and the record shows that it is not true. I ask him to look again at the consultation document, "The Law on Extradition: A Review", issued by the previous Home Secretary in March 2001—before 9/11 and all the panic that the right hon. Gentleman suggests lies at the centre of these proposals. I repeat that we issued a consultation document proposing a new framework for extradition back in March 2001. That document does not square exactly with what is in the Bill—I am not suggesting that it does—but it proposed that we did away with dual criminality in respect of our European partners. How on earth can the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that the only reason why we are in this position is that the Home Secretary was panicked into doing something after 9/11, when the fundamental proposition appeared in a Government consultation document six months earlier?

Oliver Letwin: This is absolutely wonderful. I do not know whether the Minister realises it, but he has just told us that the Home Secretary had malice aforethought—that he knew, before 11 September, that he intended to give away our birthright. The Minister admits that the Home Secretary could have taken the Bill through the House before signing the framework directive, that there was no panic and no rush to implement, and that action could have been taken after the Bill became an Act. Ultimately, the Home Secretary consciously undercut the powers of this House. Is that what the Minister is telling us?

Bob Ainsworth: I am not telling the right hon. Gentleman that at all. Impressive though the Home Secretary may be, he did not know that 9/11 was going to occur. A consultation process was in place and a public consultation document was before the House for scrutiny and comment. It proposed the complete removal of dual criminality for our European partners. It bears out what I am saying—that the provisions have in no way been imposed on us by the European Union. If the right hon. Member for West Dorset is suggesting that they have, he is simply wrong. We have led the debate, and the hon. Member for North Down has exposed the reasons very adequately. Whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not, there is a desperate need for us to modernise our extradition arrangements and to bring them up to date. Moreover, when we set the criminal framework for dealing with extradition, we must be mindful of the free movement that takes place in the EU of capital, people and everything else.

Oliver Letwin: In that case, why did not the Home Secretary see fit to legislate first and sign the directive afterwards?

Bob Ainsworth: We put out the measures for consultation. We put the ongoing negotiations on the framework document through the parliamentary scrutiny procedure, in the way that is required by the procedures of the House. We are now putting the Bill before the House.
	The Bill contains extensive safeguards. Why should we allow a person to evade justice simply because he or she has managed to cross a border before being arrested by the police? The Bill is a much-needed reform of our outdated and antiquated extradition laws. It is in the interests of us all, including our international partners, that criminals are not able to string out our extradition proceedings for years on end. The old maxim "justice delayed is justice denied" applies in extradition as it applies in other fields of criminal justice. This Bill will finally enable us to have an extradition system that is capable of coping with a world of free movement and cheap travel.
	I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 142.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Housing

That the draft Regulatory Reform (Schemes under Section 129 of the Housing Act 1988) (England) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 11th March, be approved.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
	Question agreed to.

Sittings of the House

Ordered,
	That—
	(i) at the sittings on Tuesday 1st April, Wednesday 2nd April and Thursday 3rd April, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Messages from the Lords shall have been received;
	(ii) at the sittings on Tuesday 1st April, Wednesday 2nd April and Thursday 3rd April, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported; and
	(iii) at the sitting on Thursday 3rd April, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he has notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

Transport

Ordered,
	That Mr Robert Syms be discharged from the Transport Committee and Mr John Randall be added.—[Keith Hill.]

SECTARIAN VIOLENCE (GUJARAT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

Mike Wood: I want to raise two issues relating to the communal and religious violence that swept through large parts of Gujarat in northern India just over 12 months ago. My interest was centred initially on the fact that four of my constituents were caught up in the violence, with devastating consequences for them, their families and for the wider constituency community, especially in the Batley area where I have 6,500 Muslim constituents, of whom 6,000 were either born in Gujarat or have parents who were born there.
	I shall briefly recount the details of the incident. On 28 February 2002, four of my constituents, all British-born Muslims, were nearing the end of a holiday in India. At least one of them had never been to India before. They had been sightseeing to the Taj Mahal, which is not unusual on a visit to India, and they had visited many of their relatives in the state. However, as they returned to hotel on that fateful date and while driving along the main highway from Jaipur to Surat, their car was stopped by a mob, the vehicle was set on fire and they were dragged out.
	The local Muslim driver and one of my constituents, Mr. Aswat Nallabhai, were killed on the spot. The youngest member of the party, Imran Dawood, was beaten and left for dead, but fortunately he survived and is recovering slowly in this country with his family. The other two of my constituents, cousins Sakil and Saeed Dawood, are still missing and, although the families find that impossible to accept—
	It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

Mike Wood: Although the families find it impossible to accept that Sakil and Saeed are still missing, we have to assume that they, too, fell victim to that terrible crime. Some remains of one of those men were found soon after the event, close by, by a relative who went to search for them, but, 12 months later, because of the poor forensic facilities in Gujarat, the family do not know which of those two men those remains are from and, of course, they have no news whatever of their other relative.
	The House will understand that such factors make that dreadful event even more impossible for the families to put behind them. In total, if we assume that both Sakil and Saeed are dead, nine children have been orphaned by that event. Those young men, enjoying a relaxed and informative holiday, were innocently caught up in violence that claimed up to 3,000 lives in a matter of days. Of course, we shall never know the actual number of dead because of the anarchy that reigned for days, until the army was brought in to restore order.
	As I said, it will not be difficult for the House to understand that those events have had a devastating effect on two families and a wider community, but that has been greatly exacerbated by their perception of the very poor quality of the police investigation at the time of the riots, which now leaves them with so many unanswered questions and, more importantly, makes it look increasingly unlikely that any individual or even organisation will be brought to book for those murders. Justice is being denied to those families, to add to their other injuries.
	I wish to press the Minister tonight to give a commitment that his Department will renew its efforts to convince the Indian Government of their responsibility to mount, even at this late stage, a full and proper investigation into the deaths of those British subjects and, for that matter, the deaths of so many of their own subjects, too. May I further request that that approach should also involve again offering the services of British police officers and resources to help in that exercise if that would help to expedite matters?
	I know of the considerable departmental contacts that have been made with the Indian authorities with regard to that case. In particular, the Foreign Secretary has met me three times—once during the week that his own father sadly died. He has met representatives of both families, and he has taken up the matter personally with the Indian Prime Minister and his own counterpart. I understand that the families believe that more could have been done. Having suffered such trauma, how could they believe anything else? However, I should like to place on record my thanks for the efforts of the Department, its Ministers and, not least, the Secretary of State himself.
	Time has moved on—as I have said, we are just beyond the first anniversary of those events—and so I would make a plea that those matters should be revisited; we owe those families nothing less.

Barry Gardiner: I am sure that the House will join my hon. Friend in extending its sympathy to his constituents' families. Will he also join me in expressing the horror of the House not only about the communal violence to which he refers, but about the later attack on the Akshardham at Gandhinagar, in which one of the sadhus, who used to be at the Neasden temple in north-west London in my constituency, was also killed? The communal violence in Gujarat last year is a real scar on the face of Indian democracy, and we must do all that we can to ensure that it does not happen again and that it is certainly never allowed to affect politics and community relations in this country.

Mike Wood: Of course, I am pleased to identify with the points raised by my hon. Friend. That leads me to the second, more wide-ranging issue that I wish to raise with the Minister.

Ashok Kumar: I have listened carefully to the concerns and deep feelings that my hon. Friend has expressed about his constituents. As a Hindu, and as someone who was born in India, my heart goes out to his constituents and their families, given the pain and suffering that they have experienced. Given that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) said, this matter is a blot on Indian post-independence, may I also make my hon. Friend aware that it was utterly condemned by the Indian Deputy Prime Minister when he visited the UK last year? The Indian Prime Minister has described the incident as,
	"a blot in the face of the nation".
	The whole House condemns what happened in that spirit.

Mike Wood: Again, I hear what my hon. Friend says, although in many ways words are cheap. In the face of the violence that we saw, and the causes of it, actions would speak considerably louder. As I develop my second point, perhaps he will understand where I am coming from.
	I share the view of many reputable commentators that the secular India that we have known since independence is under threat. Nowhere is that more true, if it is true at all, than in Gujarat. Indeed, many believe that Gujarat is being used as a test bed for sectarian politics, which, if replicated throughout the country, will have far-reaching and long-standing implications, not just for that region but globally and, more importantly and immediately, for the many minority communities in India. I believe that nationalism is being fostered through antipathy to minorities.
	Britain, as the ex-colonial power, has both the opportunity and the duty to monitor the situation and to raise it with the Indian authorities before even greater sectarian violence occurs. Clear commitments are needed to the principles of democracy and inclusion, which have been the hallmark of the India to which my hon. Friend has just referred: the India that we have known for the past 50 years.
	One year after the violence that appears to have taken the lives of three of my constituents and many thousands of others, tens of thousands, largely Muslims, are eking out an existence in temporary camps, unable or unwilling to return to their burnt homes and ruined businesses. Many of those homes, of course, were burned to the ground and their occupants murdered while the local sectarian police force stood and watched. A flashpoint such as Ayodhya and partisan administration of justice such as that will provide just the spark needed to make the unrest of the last 12 months seem as nothing unless action is taken urgently.
	In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will assure me, and all those who have the best interests of India at heart, that the Government will play their full part, alongside our allies, the United Nations and the rest, in ensuring that our worst fears are not realised.

Mike O'Brien: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mr. Wood) on securing this debate on the British victims of sectarian violence in Gujarat.
	I welcome the opportunity that this debate provides to mark the fact that one year has passed since the tragic events took place and to set out the action that we have taken so far. My greatest sympathy goes to the families of the victims of this tragedy. I cannot begin to imagine how difficult this past year must have been for them.
	As my hon. Friend said, on 28 February last year four British nationals visiting India were attacked in their car during a period of intense violence in the state of Gujarat. I understand that the group of four British Muslims and one Indian Muslim were travelling from Jaipur to Surat in a seven-seater vehicle. The shocking events took place when it seems that about 50 Hindus ambushed their vehicle near Prantij. The driver of the vehicle, an Indian citizen, was pulled from the vehicle and attacked. The four other occupants fled the vehicle. Imran Salim Dawood, a British citizen, was injured but managed to escape and was hospitalised with minor injuries. We understand that he witnessed a British citizen, Mohammed Aswat Nallabhai, being killed by the mob. The other two occupants, British citizens Saeed Shafik Dawood and Sakil Abdul Dawood, were unaccounted for after the incident.
	The British deputy high commission in Mumbai was notified of the incident on 1 March 2002. It immediately alerted the police in Prantij and asked them to investigate. On 8 March, consular staff in Mumbai accompanied Indian police officers and a member of the family to the area of the attack to try to establish what had happened to the two men who had disappeared. During the visit, the group found the burnt out remains of the car. They also examined a burnt out factory, which local people claimed they had seen the two men running towards before it was set on fire. They found human bones, most of which were regrettably little more than ash. Those were collected and sent to the Hyderabad laboratory for DNA testing. The DNA results were received on 8 May and identified some of the bones as belonging to Saeed Dawood.
	Our consular staff have been in regular contact with the police, who have launched murder investigations into the deaths of both Mohammed Nallabhai and Saeed Dawood. Very sadly, there is still no indication of the whereabouts of Sakil Dawood. Given the horrific events that took place that day, the family believe that he is dead. The police arrested six people in connection with the incident. They were released on bail on 31 August. We are in regular contact with the Gujarat authorities to make clear our concern that those accused are brought to trial.
	I share the families' view that justice should be done. I know that they would welcome UK police assistance in the investigation. However, any police force willing to assist in an investigation in another country can do so only at the invitation of the host Government. We have offered UK police assistance on several occasions at the highest level, but no request for such assistance has been received from the Indian Government. I assure my hon. Friend that the offer is still open and will remain so.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the case with the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Vajpayee, on 12 October and wrote to him on 4 November. He raised concerns about the case and reiterated our offer of police assistance. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend met the families of the victims of the tragic events on 21 May. My right hon. Friend raised the case with the Indian Government no fewer than four times last year, asking about the progress of the police investigations, offering police assistance and raising the issue of compensation. I also raised those issues with Foreign Secretary Sibal on 16 October last year.
	The Indian Government agreed the principle of compensation, which is in the process of being paid. I understand that the issue of compensation is a sensitive and difficult one for the families. The amount offered is a relatively insignificant amount in this country and can in no way compensate for their terrible loss. Furthermore, the whereabouts of Sakil is still unknown. The family of Saeed and Sakil Dawood met the Foreign Office's consular directorate in January. The consular directorate, the high commission in New Delhi and the deputy high commission in Mumbai continue to have a strong interest in the case. They continue to pursue vigorously issues raised by the family and to help in any way that they can. Obviously, the longer that matters are drawn out, the more difficult any investigation becomes, but I reassure my hon. Friend that we remain alert to and will keep a close eye on any progress in the case and that we will continue to do all that we reasonably can to press the Indian authorities to ensure that they bring investigations to a conclusion, which we hope will result in justice for the families of the victims.
	The backdrop to the tragic events was the violence that engulfed Gujarat between February and April 2002. It was the worst outbreak of religious-related violence that has occurred in India for at least 10 years. Muslims were the main victims. The deplorable attack by a Muslim mob on a train at Godhra on 27 February, in which 58 Hindus were killed, sparked horrendous violence for the next two months. According to official figures, the ensuing violence claimed more than 1,000 lives, including the three British citizens. Many reports suggest that the true figure is higher. Many women were raped. The large majority of victims were Muslim, and their businesses and homes were destroyed.
	The Government of India have publicly condemned the violence, as my hon. Friend has said; Prime Minister Vajpayee called it a "blot on India". However, we are concerned at reports that the state Government of Gujarat did not do as much as they could to prevent and end the violence. We think that they could have acted more quickly and more decisively. The National Human Rights Commission in India has accused the Gujarat Government
	"of a complicity that was tacit if not explicit".
	Nevertheless, we welcome the Indian Government's quick response in October to prevent further violence after the terrorist attack on a Hindu temple in Gandhinagar, Gujarat. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) referred to the circumstances surrounding that and to the implications for his constituent. Obviously, we share his concern about that event.
	We remain very concerned about the welfare of many in Gujarat, especially Muslims and Christians. The Government of India have given us assurances, which we welcome, that they will take action to bring to justice the perpetrators of the violence. Some 23,277 people have been arrested in connection with the violence so far, but we understand that, to date, there have been very few prosecutions and that many of those arrested have been released on bail.
	Ministers and officials have raised our concerns with the Government of India on a number of occasions since the violence began in February last year. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been in regular contact with senior members of the Indian Government about the situation in Gujarat. At the same time, he raised our wider concerns about all incidents of religious intolerance in India.
	Most recently, on 17 October, I discussed our concerns about Gujarat with Mr I.D. Swami, the Indian Minister of State for Home Affairs. New Delhi high commission officials have followed developments closely, and also raised our concerns with the Government of India on several occasions last year. We have also offered practical help. The British Government provided immediate relief assistance to victims of the violence. We are now considering whether there are further practical measures that we can support under the human rights project fund to encourage reconciliation between the communities in Gujarat.
	For all the justifiable concern that these incidents have caused, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that there remain grounds for hope. The violence in Gujarat, awful as it was, did not spread to other Indian states. The vast majority of people in India were appalled by what happened there last year. The Government of India are always ready to listen to our concerns and consistently reiterate their commitment to religious equality, and we welcome that. Nevertheless, more and swifter action on the ground and in the courts to bring the perpetrators of the violence to justice would send a welcome signal that the Government's commitment is being translated from words into meaningful action. We shall continue to urge them to ensure that such a positive signal is sent. We will also continue to press them and the Gujarat authorities to bring those responsible for the murder of British nationals to justice.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, particularly when he is about to conclude.
	I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that over the many years of the appalling so-called troubles in Northern Ireland we lost a lot of people through sectarian violence. In fact, they disappeared without trace and no one has served any time at all or been convicted of their murder. In Northern Ireland, therefore, there is speculation and talk about a truth commission. Has the Minister, or human rights organisations in Gujarat and India, given any consideration to the need for a truth commission in Gujarat to address the problem of people who have disappeared and others who have been killed? Without such a commission, we may never get to the bottom of who was responsible.

Mike O'Brien: On the particular issue of whether there has been any consideration of a truth commission in Gujarat, I am afraid that I do not know, but I will find out and write to the hon. Lady—[Interruption.] I am getting signals from my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, North and for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar), who obviously have a deep personal knowledge of Gujarat, that they are not aware that any such consideration has been made, but I shall certainly write to the hon. Lady about that.
	In conclusion, as far as we are concerned, the death of any British national is a matter of enormous concern for the Government. However, the particularly horrific circumstances in which those British nationals died is of deep concern to all of us, and the matter has been taken up with considerable personal interest not only by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister but by the British High Commission. We all hoped that India had put such matters behind it. India is a democracy that has made enormous strides in the past 50 years, and these blots on India, as the Prime Minister said, must be dealt with firmly to ensure that they do not arise in future. Our direct involvement as a result of some of the victims of those incidents being British means that this is a matter of concern not just to Indians but to the British people and the British Government. It is a matter that all right-thinking people across the world ought to be concerned about. India is a great democracy—it needs to be true to the standards of democracy, and will be held to account as a democracy, which means dealing firmly with any religious intolerance and certainly any religious murders.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Seven o'clock.